# A memory is a physical thing. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584 "2005-03-02T11:33:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/181 "2005-03-05T07:49:07Z")
**Voyager** , so glad you stepped in! Early in the thread I was thinking of your answer to me regarding parallel vs. sequential Turing Machines from a couple months back. (I told you I’d credit you whenever it came up.) I look forward to what you have to say, and hope I didn’t botch any computer related stuff up too badly… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/182 "2005-03-05T08:05:35Z")
There was a debate about accessing memory. There seems to be a lot more going on in the brain than we are aware of. We definitely don’t sort through memories when we access them. They seem to be linked in all sorts of interesting ways. When a microprocessor accesses memory, it doesn’t directly read data from where you would think the data is. There are several levels of caches, which optimize memory storage in ways invisible to even the assembly language programmer. There is even the concept of short term memory, with small, very fast, caches holding the most recently accessed data, and data around it, since you often index through chunks sequentially. An awful lot of the transistors in a processor are involved in dealing with the cache. I can’t imagine that we haven’t evolved similar mechanisms to handle our memory. Not exactly identical , of course, but performing the same function. BTW, a lot of software does learn - and not just recent stuff also. Samuel’s checker playing program, from the late '50s and early '60s became champion. Samuel never programmed in strategy - he programmed in a way for the program to improve, using weights I believe, and played one copy against the other. Unlike Lib’s contention, the same position might result in a different move after learning. I haven’t read any papers on chess playing programs in ages, and a lot of the stuff is move processing in hardware, but I would be very surprised if no learning was going on. But I’m not surprised that no AI people look at it anymore - the problem is well understood, and they’re way past the point of diminishing returns, and with the funding they’d get they couldn’t possibly do better than IBM or the companies working on it. BTW2, it would be easy to add something to chess programs to change strategy based on who they were playing. I think poker playing programs do that - they learn a player’s likelihood to bluff in different situations. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/183 "2005-03-05T08:14:09Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > **Voyager** , so glad you stepped in! Early in the thread I was thinking of your answer to me regarding parallel vs. sequential Turing Machines from a couple months back. (I told you I’d credit you whenever it came up.) > > I look forward to what you have to say, and hope I didn’t botch any computer related stuff up too badly… Thanks. No one got anything too wrong, but the internals of processors are so damn complicated these days, and programmers are moving so far away from the bare machine, that no one knows everything anymore. You have to work for a company that designs these things to get access to the microarchitecture manuals. It also helps to have worked on architecture when things were simpler. BTW, I’ve followed AI for over 30 years, and met with and had classes from the old great names at MIT, but never worked on it. I didn’t do well enough on LISP, so I flunked Minsky’s test. 🙂 My opinion is that it is possible, but the AI people are going about things totally the wrong way. I think we’ll get a computer intelligence through simulation of an actual brain long before we write code to create an intelligence. One of the biggest fallacies most people have is that if you have a bigger, faster, computer, you automatically get bigger, faster, smarter software that scales. Microsoft is a counter example to that. I worked at a place once where I had NT on a 100 MHz Pentium. XP is running on my 2.8 GHz machine is sure not 28 times better than NT. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/184 "2005-03-05T08:22:52Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Well, whaddya know. The “follow-on” post I made comes in handy here, as I think bootstrapping is the answer to this. And I hadn’t even read your post yet. We are born with a particular (malleable) physical configuration that provides just enough for the first (perhaps second? third?) stage of development. How does that square with your thinking? Fine, except that I think humans are on the top step of awareness, or at least on the shoulder of the curve. How the first few steps take place is another whole ball of string. Obviously memory has to be at least a potential for awareness to occur, or else awareness is always nascent. The perpetual infant. Yet, without awareness, what purpose does memory serve that it might develop? Entirely deterministic behavior that has the potential to be modified by iterative changes in neural response is not quite memory, and could perhaps be an intermediate step. (But does that imply that only neural interaction can support awareness? So much for grokking the grasses.) And not to open worm cans, or anything, but we have neural interactions with our environment long before birth. Do they create changes that are analogous to memory? Such memories have no referent in common with our post partum environment, but still, the process might well be underway at the formation of the brain. Or, it might be taking place in any organism that has an integrated system for altering its own structure in systematic response to external stimuli. Sponges remembering the sweet oceans of ancient times. Not stimulating conversation, but still potential awareness. Defining awareness itself is much more subtle than watching changes in it as it develops. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/185 "2005-03-05T10:29:21Z")
> [@Other-wise](#): > > Wha? I thought “Awareness is not a process, but a state.” (post #120). It sounds like awareness has an evolutionary advantage precisely because it does something; blending immediate memory and past memory. It doesn’t sound like a static state, a passive “screen” the memories are displayed on; it sounds like a process. I’m having trouble reconciling the state/process thing. Awareness IS a state. Nothing that you quoted or that I said contradicts that. There IS a process going on, but that process is not awareness. Awareness is merely one aspect of the process. It ought not to be necessary every time a statement is made to reiterate that awareness is a state. As was already said, the blending of immediate memory and past memory occurs BEFORE awareness. Perhaps I have pushed too much at you. You are quite busy with multiple discussions, and therefore might be having to read with less attention than you would like. > [@](#): > > I thought we had already established that, pre- and post-awareness, our brains already associate, relate and store information. Given the complexity and processing power in a biological neural net, I see no problem in a completely non-aware, stimulus-and-response-only human surviving at least long enough to reproduce. It WOULD be non-aware if YOU weren’t there. The awareness _state_ happens to arise in your cognitive area (your frontal cortex), which is constantly under examination by your temporal lobe. You aren’t learning anything or growing upon the presentation of the event image. You are merely cognizant of it. It is AFTERWARD that you make inferences and whatnot. It isn’t that awareness is an evolutionary advantage because you know you’re aware. Awareness is an evolutionary advantage because it is a state that allows you to make sense of what’s there. It could just as easily occur in the parietal lobes, but it just DOESN’T. Your complaint about awareness occuring consciously is like complaining that sight conveys color. Why do we need color? Why can’t the brain just process the color without informing me of it? Why can’t I just see blackness and not be bothered with color? Light just transmits the information necessary for color, and the brain just processes it. That’s just the way it works. What you are doing is trying to strip yourself out of your own brain, and wondering why you are there. > [@](#): > > Man, this is as Cartesian as Cartesian gets. I think we going to have to establish what the thing is that “you that you recognize as you (your consciousness)”? I’m not getting how it’s different than awareness, or what its relationship to awareness is, or if it’s even necessary for awareness. Actually, it’s Carterian, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m surprised that it’s surprising to you that there is a portion of your brain that is you. Your temporal lobe IS you. Remove your limbic system, and you are a reptile. You would be conscious, but you would not be aware in the sense you are now. There is no point in confusing consciousness with awareness at this point. > [@](#): > > Well, since I don’t perceive “different wavelengths of light” now (I perceive blue and red, etc.), I doubt seriously that we perceived “wavelengths of light” as infants. But regardless of what we ultimately label a perception or associated it with, we still must have been able to discern a difference between perceptions (say, what we now perceive as and call “blue” and “gray”); otherwise we would have nothing to single out to ask our mommies about. You perceive whatever you’ve learned to perceive. Perception, like consciousness, is not relevant to awareness, other than tangentially. You’ve come to a state in which you have forgotten things already covered, and are calling them up for discussion. That is doubtless due to the sheer volume of discussions you are having on multiple topics with multiple people. I notice that you’ve complained to Hoodoo that you’re exchanging some “dense” posts with me, and I can understand how that might be a burden to you. To say that you do not yet know what awareness is despite our having deduced a perfectly coherent definition without any logical flaw is to reveal a certain fatigue, perhaps. I’ll just back off a bit to give you room to breathe, perhaps taking up with someone else who might be interested in carrying the deductions through to determining whether memory is physical. I completely understand pile-ons and how onerous they can be. Thanks again for the interesting discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/186 "2005-03-05T10:32:21Z")
Voyager, I’m not sure I would call that “learning”. Learning has some rather daunting epistemic baggage. Perhaps “improving” would be a better term. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/187 "2005-03-05T11:25:13Z")
Again, busy today so I only have time for brief observations - why oh why did I start this thread near the end of the financial year? > [@o-w](#): > > “Minimum” level? Is there a cutoff point? More importantly, why is there a cutoff point? How is it established? Note that pretty much _everything_’s a continuum when you get down to it. If there is “weather” and stuff that you _wouldn’t_ say was “weather”, it must gradually _emerge_ by putting together water molecules and energy. I’d suggest that quibbling about the exact number of molecules or the exact configuration thereof which forms the threshold is a little unnecessary. Weather, and life, and cognition, and the rest of it, still has a _physical_ basis. > [@](#): > > Erosion is a relatively long-term physical change which directly reflects events involving the rock, so it sounds to me like erosion shares at least some of the characteristics we’ve been attributing to memory. Personally, I can’t imagine that rocks are aware; the concept seems ludicrous. Yes, erosion could provide some kind of “memory” to the cliff face. I’m suggesting that _access_ to, _comparison of_ that memory, is the basis of cognition. That, to me, seems to start with insects and complex control systems just as a “cloud” requires a pretty _big_ load of molecules. > [@](#): > > Now all we have to do is figure out what an “aware being” and an “interpretation” is and we’ll be all set. I don’t know whether it’s relevant, but my way out of the Chinese Room is that “interprtation” or “meaning” is the association, the literally physical neuronal **link** between a memory (visual, say) and a sound or symbol (_ie._ a linguistic referent). ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/188 "2005-03-05T11:59:45Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Awareness begins long before it grows over such erudite concepts as a name for the color blue. Awareness begins with self, and the first real big step, for human babies is learning that mother is not self. Identity or specifically, awareness of identity is the fundamental step of learning about interrelatedness. Stuff cannot be related to other stuff, until something becomes other stuff. Mom starts it all when she is inconsistent in responding to the child’s behavior. Mostly, you cry, mom sticks food in your mouth. Sometimes, though, she doesn’t. Your hand is more reliable, but less satisfying in this regard. It goes into your mouth much more reliably, but it doesn’t change the hunger state as well. > > While you think about that, over a nice milk lunch, you check Mom out. She has a lot of other differences about her, from your hand. One thing, you notice that she doesn’t learn to move when you try to move her, anywhere near as well as your hand. She pretty much moves toward you when you cry, but even that isn’t reliable. She does show you her face when you look at her, though. You hand can’t seem to do that. I have to disagree with your view on the genesis of awareness. I would think instead that awareness must start at a more fundamental level, beginning with the awareness of _difference_; with an awareness of _otherness_ following rapidly on it’s heels: “_that_ is warmer/softer/ bigger than _this_” (otherwise, babies wouldn’t cry because they wouldn’t be aware of any difference between their hand and mom’s breast), followed by “_that_ is warmer/bigger/softer than _me_”. > [@](#): > > And not to open worm cans, or anything, but we have neural interactions with our environment long before birth. Do they create changes that are analogous to memory? Such memories have no referent in common with our post partum environment, but still, the process might well be underway at the formation of the brain. > > Or, it might be taking place in any organism that has an integrated system for altering its own structure in systematic response to external stimuli. Sponges remembering the sweet oceans of ancient times. Not stimulating conversation, but still potential awareness. Defining awareness itself is much more subtle than watching changes in it as it develops. Earlier, I had tried to explain why I thought we’re perhaps being a bit hasty in setting down the parameters for memory and awareness. **Tris** , thanks once again for articulating my thoughts, and in manner that’s far more coherent than I’ve been able to muster. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/189 "2005-03-05T13:40:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Awareness IS a state. Nothing that you quoted or that I said contradicts that. There IS a process going on, but that process is not awareness. Awareness is merely one aspect of the process. It ought not to be necessary every time a statement is made to reiterate that awareness is a state. As was already said, the blending of immediate memory and past memory occurs BEFORE awareness. Perhaps I have pushed too much at you. You are quite busy with multiple discussions, and therefore might be having to read with less attention than you would like. Well, my confusion stemmed in part from post #168, where my question “Why the “middleman” of awareness?” was followed by: “Because the process of blending immediate memory with past memory establishes a continuity of familiarity…”, leading me to think awareness _was_ the blending process, hence my confusion. But you’re right; I am feeling rather splayed out here. I really want to grasp your conception of an awareness state, **Lib** , so let me once again slow down, and try smaller bites: my understanding of the descriptor “state” is that states are not dynamic, they’re static. _IS_ awareness a static state, a passive “screen” the memories are displayed on, or am I entirely booting the definition of “state”? > [@](#): > > It WOULD be non-aware if YOU weren’t there. The awareness _state_ happens to arise in your cognitive area (your frontal cortex), which is constantly under examination by your temporal lobe. You aren’t learning anything or growing upon the presentation of the event image. You are merely cognizant of it. It is AFTERWARD that you make inferences and whatnot. It isn’t that awareness is an evolutionary advantage because you know you’re aware. Awareness is an evolutionary advantage because it is a state that allows you to make sense of what’s there. It could just as easily occur in the parietal lobes, but it just DOESN’T. Your complaint about awareness occuring consciously is like complaining that sight conveys color. Why do we need color? Why can’t the brain just process the color without informing me of it? Why can’t I just see blackness and not be bothered with color? Light just transmits the information necessary for color, and the brain just processes it. That’s just the way it works. What you are doing is trying to strip yourself out of your own brain, and wondering why you are there. Yes, that is _exactly_ what I was trying to do. If it’s all ultimately “brain gets input, brain sends output”, and our stimulus-response system is sophisticated enough, why would we have any need for an “inner” awareness of consciousness, color, etc.? In the field of cognitive science, I’m far from alone in asking that question. I was hoping that asking _why_ we need awareness in the first place would help in our search for the _nature_ of awareness. The only reason I brought it up is because I’m still trying to comprehend the whole “presentation” angle. The presentation of awareness (to consciousness?) seems to be the only important difference between a human and an automaton. But bringing it up has badly confused the issue, so I shall, from this point forward, cease to bark up that particular tree. > [@](#): > > Actually, it’s Carterian What’s “Carterian”? Could you provide a link? (I got 50,000 hits for Jimmy Carter) > [@](#): > > I’m surprised that it’s surprising to you that there is a portion of your brain that is you. Your temporal lobe IS you. Remove your limbic system, and you are a reptile. You would be conscious, but you would not be aware in the sense you are now. There is no point in confusing consciousness with awareness at this point. This is a nitpick… no… on second thought it’s not. So far, no one has established that there is a portion of the brain that is you. There are a number of contenders, all with their detractors and counter-contenders. A number of researchers think that “you” are not a portion of your brain at all, but a coherency in neuronal firing rates. You’ve correctly stated that the frontal cortex is constantly under examination by the temporal lobe, but that’s sort of a “so what” statement, considering that the temporal lobe is also constantly under examination by the frontal cortex. If you remove the cortex and _keep_ the limbic system, _then_ you’re a reptile. However, if you remove the limbic system, there ain’t no “you” no more. Do you equate “consciousness” with “self”? I’m not going to agree or disagree with your answer, I’m just trying to understand your use of “consciousness” as opposed to “awareness”. I’ve been assuming all along that "consciousness"was more akin to “awareness” than “self”. > [@](#): > > To say that you do not yet know what awareness is despite our having deduced a perfectly coherent definition without any logical flaw is to reveal a certain fatigue, perhaps. I completely grant that the definition has no logical flaws, but I’m having trouble granting it’s coherency. That’s what I’ve been trying to explore here. Perhaps backing off is a good (although somehow sad) idea; it will give me time to mentally digest and keep the discussion from going down the rabbit hole. I would appreciate it if you could answer the questions in this post about awareness as a static state, and if consciousness =self. I need to clarify those if I’m to make any headway here. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/190 "2005-03-05T14:10:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Note that pretty much _everything_’s a continuum when you get down to it. If there is “weather” and stuff that you _wouldn’t_ say was “weather”, it must gradually _emerge_ by putting together water molecules and energy. I’d suggest that quibbling about the exact number of molecules or the exact configuration thereof which forms the threshold is a little unnecessary. Weather, and life, and cognition, and the rest of it, still has a _physical_ basis. Yeah, but you know my response will be that, if everything’s a continuum, we must be differentiating molecules and energy _as such_ cognitively. Does cognition have a physical basis? Well… > [@](#): > > Yes, erosion could provide some kind of “memory” to the cliff face. I’m suggesting that _access_ to, _comparison of_ that memory, is the basis of cognition. That, to me, seems to start with insects and complex control systems just as a “cloud” requires a pretty _big_ load of molecules. Then maybe it isn’t so much whether memory is a physical thing; it’s whether _cognition_ is a physical thing. As myself and others have pointed out, without interpretation, a memory isn’t a memory at all. Physicality is necessary for cognition, but is it _sufficient_? > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether it’s relevant, but my way out of the Chinese Room is that “interprtation” or “meaning” is the association, the literally physical neuronal **link** between a memory (visual, say) and a sound or symbol (_ie._ a linguistic referent). Then the question becomes, what makes one neuronal link an association, while another is not? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/191 "2005-03-05T14:30:48Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Well, my confusion stemmed in part from post #168, where my question “Why the “middleman” of awareness?” was followed by: “Because the process of blending immediate memory with past memory establishes a continuity of familiarity…”, leading me to think awareness _was_ the blending process, hence my confusion. Well, yes, but awareness is a critical component of that process. You can’t just yank it out and remain with a process minus awareness. Just like you can’t just yank out the liquid state from heating ice to a boil. > [@](#): > > But you’re right; I am feeling rather splayed out here. I really want to grasp your conception of an awareness state, **Lib** , so let me once again slow down, and try smaller bites: my understanding of the descriptor “state” is that states are not dynamic, they’re static. _IS_ awareness a static state, a passive “screen” the memories are displayed on, or am I entirely booting the definition of “state”? I suppose you could put it that way, but I’m not sure how useful it is. A state is a mode; i.e., “the particular appearance, form, or manner in which an underlying substance, or a permanent aspect or attribute of it, is manifested” (American Heritage). Possibility is a state. Necessity is a state. Awareness is a state. Awareness is what it appears like when the process of memory construction manifests to you. > [@](#): > > Yes, that is _exactly_ what I was trying to do. If it’s all ultimately “brain gets input, brain sends output”, and our stimulus-response system is sophisticated enough, why would we have any need for an “inner” awareness of consciousness, color, etc.? In the field of cognitive science, I’m far from alone in asking that question. Alone or not, y’all are equivocating all over the map. Parts of the brain are not the same any more than your arm is the same as your foot just because they’re both parts of your body. That’s one reason computer analogies are so weak. The brain is not a single bank of RAM. With respect to need, it is asking the wrong question. Evolution is not a matter of need. There is no design. No guiding hand. No goal. All anthropomorphic references to evolution are purely metaphorical. > [@](#): > > I was hoping that asking _why_ we need awareness in the first place would help in our search for the _nature_ of awareness. The only reason I brought it up is because I’m still trying to comprehend the whole “presentation” angle. The presentation of awareness (to consciousness?) seems to be the only important difference between a human and an automaton. It is a vain hope. As I said previously, no matter what the entity, if it processes memory in the same way as put forth heretofore, it is aware. Human or automaton, it makes no difference. Like I said earlier, humanity isn’t special just because it is aware. What is special is its capacity for awareness — the sheer amount of it, and the sheer number of things it can be aware of. > [@](#): > > But bringing it up has badly confused the issue, so I shall, from this point forward, cease to bark up that particular tree. I seems as though you’ve simply forgotten what was covered. Once we have established analytically that propositions A through G are true, there is no point in revisiting E. It will not become false due to any new discovery. Analytical truth is not like scientific truth. The angles of a triangle on a flat plane will add up to 180 degrees no matter what new conclusion is reached no matter how far down the road. Trust the logic. > [@](#): > > What’s “Carterian”? Could you provide a link? (I got 50,000 hits for Jimmy Carter) William Carter is a philosopher who opposes the Psychological Approach to the Persistence Question of Identity Theory. I don’t have a handy cite, but it should be Googlable. > [@](#): > > This is a nitpick… no… on second thought it’s not. So far, no one has established that there is a portion of the brain that is you. There are a number of contenders, all with their detractors and counter-contenders. A number of researchers think that “you” are not a portion of your brain at all, but a coherency in neuronal firing rates. You’ve correctly stated that the frontal cortex is constantly under examination by the temporal lobe, but that’s sort of a “so what” statement, considering that the temporal lobe is also constantly under examination by the frontal cortex. If you remove the cortex and _keep_ the limbic system, _then_ you’re a reptile. However, if you remove the limbic system, there ain’t no “you” no more. Reptiles have only the medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, globus pallidus, and olfactory bulbs. They have no limbic system. That begins with mammals. But again, that’s neither here nor there. Pick a part, any part, and call it X. It is still that room in the house that you’re in. Even if X is a “mere” coherency, you’re still tuned in to the house. You can say you’re watching on closed circuit TV if you like. It doesn’t matter. The process and the state are the same. Whether you are driving from inside the car or by remote control, the mechanics of locomotion are unchanged. > [@](#): > > Do you equate “consciousness” with “self”? I’m not going to agree or disagree with your answer, I’m just trying to understand your use of “consciousness” as opposed to “awareness”. I’ve been assuming all along that "consciousness"was more akin to “awareness” than “self”. I wouldn’t say “equating”, but certainly relating. It is the self that IS conscious. Whether it is an identity or a predicate really doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > I completely grant that the definition has no logical flaws, but I’m having trouble granting it’s coherency. That’s what I’ve been trying to explore here. If it is logical, then it must be coherent: “Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts” (American Heritage). > [@](#): > > Perhaps backing off is a good (although somehow sad) idea; it will give me time to mentally digest and keep the discussion from going down the rabbit hole. As you wish. I blame myself for being so long winded. I’ve been told I don’t communicate well. > [@](#): > > I would appreciate it if you could answer the questions in this post about awareness as a static state, and if consciousness =self. I need to clarify those if I’m to make any headway here. I hope I’ve done that, at least to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/192 "2005-03-05T14:48:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, there is discernable physical change in the hardware when you run the different programs. There are ebeam probers that give you a picture of what is going on physically. In 1980 I saw a cool movie of the 1s and 0s flowing through buses. Plus, if you measure power consumption, the three programs will very likely draw different amounts of power. In many cases you can dump the state of the processor - in some cases when it is running, through a technique called shadow scan. If you do this, you will see that the states of the hardware are very different. This points to the weakness of my reliance on the Ship of Theseus paradox. Even though measurements of the physical state are changing, the actual configuration of hardware isn’t changing (barring FPGAs, and evidenced by the fact that the results of dumping core will always exhibit the same structure). I’m not sure how else to handle the objection; any ideas? > [@](#): > > The number of states you can store depends on the number of memory elements. Rocks have none. We have lots. But things are more complicated than just memory, even for computers… An interesting point, I think. How might one characterize a “memory element”? What I mean is, I can see qualifying RAM and neurons as memory elements, but it is conceivable (I think) to have a memory element that is neither. What would it be like? Might a possible description be characterized by the idea expressed in the paragraph above – that there is some physical configuration that retains continuity but whose state can change without changing the overall configuration? Nifty…I like that one, as it supplies a concrete functionality that can be “tested” for. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/193 "2005-03-05T15:15:27Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Fine, except that I think humans are on the top step of awareness, or at least on the shoulder of the curve. How the first few steps take place is another whole ball of string. > \ > And not to open worm cans, or anything, but we have neural interactions with our environment long before birth. Do they create changes that are analogous to memory? Such memories have no referent in common with our post partum environment, but still, the process might well be underway at the formation of the brain. > > Or, it might be taking place in any organism that has an integrated system for altering its own structure in systematic response to external stimuli. Sponges remembering the sweet oceans of ancient times. Not stimulating conversation, but still potential awareness. Defining awareness itself is much more subtle than watching changes in it as it develops. Ohh…I hope I didn’t imply that it was easy to explain, nor that we’d made a robust accounting, nor that “stages” of development are discrete and well-defined. It makes sense to me to think that neural development pre-birth (and continuing post-birth) is a laying down of a physical configuration that relies both on genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), which is inherent in the boot-strapping process. I think that this parallels the macro-evolution debate, exhibiting all the same objections and suppositions. (Which I also find interesting, as one can apply micro-evolution to various “modules” of the brain.) I find it to be convincing; if it’s not, I’d like to hear why it’s not. (Note that I don’t mean this as a challenge, mind you, but am asking for a pointing out of where the weaknesses are that I may be overlooking.) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/194 "2005-03-05T16:11:29Z")
**Lib** , thanks for sticking with me. This last post gave me a much clearer grasp of how you’re using both “state” and “awareness” and I realize I _have_ been chewing on the wrong end of the stick. > [@Liberal](#): > > Alone or not, y’all are equivocating all over the map. Parts of the brain are not the same any more than your arm is the same as your foot just because they’re both parts of your body. That’s one reason computer analogies are so weak. The brain is not a single bank of RAM. With respect to need, it is asking the wrong question. Evolution is not a matter of need. There is no design. No guiding hand. No goal. All anthropomorphic references to evolution are purely metaphorical. You’re right, “need” was sloppy, fatigued wording on my part. I fully realize evolution is neither a matter of need or design. > [@](#): > > It is a vain hope. As I said previously, no matter what the entity, if it processes memory in the same way as put forth heretofore, it is aware. Human or automaton, it makes no difference. Like I said earlier, humanity isn’t special just because it is aware. What is special is its capacity for awareness — the sheer amount of it, and the sheer number of things it can be aware of. Boy, I am _so_ tempted to uncork a barrage of curiosity about the relationship between capacity for awareness, consciousness, and what you have termed our “essence”. But that’s an OP in itself. > [@](#): > > Reptiles have only the medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, globus pallidus, and olfactory bulbs. They have no limbic system. That begins with mammals. But again, that’s neither here nor there. Pick a part, any part, and call it X. It is still that room in the house that you’re in. Even if X is a “mere” coherency, you’re still tuned in to the house. You can say you’re watching on closed circuit TV if you like. It doesn’t matter. The process and the state are the same. Whether you are driving from inside the car or by remote control, the mechanics of locomotion are unchanged. Well, whadda you know. I returned to my bookshelf to prove you wrong, but after consulting additional tomes, it turns out that Maclean’s schema is different from Panksepp’s which is different from Pinel’s. Some assign parts of the limbic system to the basal ganglia and vice versa. No wonder neuroscience is so much fun. But I take your point. The process and the state are the same _regardless_ of how they’re realized. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t say “equating”, but certainly relating. It is the self that IS conscious. Whether it is an identity or a predicate really doesn’t matter. I’m curious; what do you make of claims of “non-dual” experience? That is, of consciousness without subject? > [@](#): > > As you wish. I blame myself for being so long winded. I’ve been told I don’t communicate well. In my opinion, it’s not that you don’t communicate well, it’s that your communications are _dense_; like premium dark chocolate. You can’t just gobble them down by the bucketful like popcorn. Actually, I’m reminded somewhat of a friend of mine who routinely employs _triple_ entendres: at first, they whoosh right past you, but when you finally get it, it’s pretty damn funny. > [@](#): > > I hope I’ve done that, at least to some degree. You have indeed. And again, thanks for sticking with me. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/195 "2005-03-05T16:20:04Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > And not to open worm cans, or anything, but we have neural interactions with our environment long before birth. Do they create changes that are analogous to memory? Such memories have no referent in common with our post partum environment, but still, the process might well be underway at the formation of the brain. > > Or, it might be taking place in any organism that has an integrated system for altering its own structure in systematic response to external stimuli. Sponges remembering the sweet oceans of ancient times. Not stimulating conversation, but still potential awareness. Defining awareness itself is much more subtle than watching changes in it as it develops. Dagnabbit, I forgot to make my point. While such memories may not share a common referent – with no sense of other, how could they? What might qualify as a referent? – they still share a commonality. The senses possess a fundamental continuity; in other words, the sense of touch in a fetus may be less developed than in a toddler, but it is still touch. So long as memory of the senses can be stored, recalled, and compared, there is a foundation for establishing _difference_, which can in turn be used to establish _otherness_ and _identity of self_. Not that this is a complete explanation in the least, but it certainly seems (to me, at least) to provide an adequate foundation. I woke up this morning thinking about **SentientMeat** ’s post regarding the _statistical_ nature of our senses. This seems to dovetail nicely here: senses retain continuity over time via their physical basis. Memories of sensory perceptions are paritally due to statistical reinforcement. “Memory elements”, as referred to by **Voyager** , provide the units on which the statistical reinforcement can act. The continuity of the physical configuration of memory elements provides the means to maintain memory at some level, while also allowing changes in state (not configuration) to alter memory (to a greater or lesser degree). The ability to store, recall, and compare memories provides the foundation for establishing difference. Nice, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/196 "2005-03-05T16:30:53Z")
Evolution appears inescapable in consideration, and we seem, in my opinion to be likely to find it in individual iterations of the phenomenon of awareness, and in the general case of the genesis of awareness. Folks discussing the possibility that sponges remember things shouldn’t be worried about including the concept of evolution in their argument. 😉 In the most primitive examples of both cases, it seems very unlikely that we will be able to define a single point in that genesis where awareness unarguably exists and is immediately new. While a set of parameters that do define such a point might exist, it is inherent in the nature of the phenomenon that it (the immediate genitive state for awareness) is ephemeral by necessity. Our own personal experience with awareness is quite similar. By the time I unarguably had awareness, I had already had it for quite a while. I not only don’t remember becoming aware, I don’t remember remembering it at any time. Of course we haven’t progressed far enough in the examination for a minimum definition of awareness yet either, so perhaps it is premature to consider its origin. But, I suddenly think, the cosmological origins of awareness as a phenomenon, and the individual experience are fundamentally similar to an extraordinary degree. Do we not expect the “aware ones” to be specifically “like me” in that character, however much dissimilar they are in every other character? Do I not search for a reply? I don’t feel compelled to acknowledge any awareness until it alters my own perception in some way. And specifically, in some way that has at least some aspect of communication. I might explore the philosophical case that a rock has awareness, but I don’t spend much time talking to the rock. If the rock starts changing color when I speak, I probably will start talking to it. And if this particular rock has IBM written on it, and starts talking back, I will impute awareness, and even personality to it, in short order. (And develop emotional prejudices for or against it and Apples) But the existence of a single awareness, unique in its environment has inherent problems. The unique awareness is not differentiatable from its environment on the criteria of awareness. It has no aware elements in its universe. So, all things are only divided into things I can affect, and things that remain unaffected. Nothing responds. No image of myself. Crushingly lonely, and cripplingly limited with respect to developing the concept of self. Yet the concept of self seems so integrally associated with awareness as a state of being. I think awareness must come many times, and then fail, before the coincidence of multiple aware entities make it possible to develop into a self sustained state. That seems probable, in the genesis of the phenomenon, and in the development of the individual. (There could be many different threads on the moral, religious, and social aspects of that! But let us not wander off.) ## Tris “Don’t you want somebody to love?” ~ Grace Slick ~ ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/197 "2005-03-05T16:37:47Z")
I think **DS** is right that location of the threshold of awareness may not be a factual question. > [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Or, it might be taking place in **any organism that has an integrated system for altering its own structure in systematic response to external stimuli**. Sponges remembering the sweet oceans of ancient times. Not stimulating conversation, but still potential awareness. Defining awareness itself is much more subtle than watching changes in it as it develops.Tris **Tris** , doesn’t this take awareness down to the rocks, expanding in response to the morning sun? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/198 "2005-03-05T16:50:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > William Carter is a philosopher who opposes the Psychological Approach to the Persistence Question of Identity Theory. I don’t have a handy cite, but it should be Googlable. Can you provide a little more to go on? I tried to google on “william carter” “identity theory”, but came up with only a single page of hits, none of which seemed applicable. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/199 "2005-03-05T16:57:24Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > **Tris** , doesn’t this take awareness down to the rocks, expanding in response to the morning sun? Not unless the rock has an integral method of systematically responding to the rising sun, and changing the response for some non external reason. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/200 "2005-03-05T17:47:02Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Can you provide a little more to go on? I tried to google on “william carter” “identity theory”, but came up with only a single page of hits, none of which seemed applicable. > > Thanks. Try “W. R. Carter” + identity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=11)