# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/281 "2005-03-07T11:52:40Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > Other-wise and I have established that a memory is an image in the sense of a representation of an event. Which is different to the image on the cave wall or the digital photograph _how_, exactly, such that the cave or digital image is physical but the human one isn’t? > [@](#): > > That representation might or might not contain any visual element. Besides, lots of people have never seen anything, and they have memories. Quite so, but sensory input of some kind transferred to memory would cover that: again, there is no fundamental, qualitative difference _there_ either, agreed? > [@](#): > > If you are going to claim that analytics are physical… I’m going to **explore** analytics via processes which are clearly _as_ physical as objects, weather and death. At any point, I invite you to stop me and say, “Ah, but this or that _can’t_ be explained that way”. As my OP suggested, this isn;t really the place to debate whether there are **no** physical things. > [@](#): > > We can leave what remains as a debate about computers. Human computers, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/282 "2005-03-07T12:03:04Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I was not restricting my comment to science. I was including logic also. But you said, “The question, **scientifically speaking** , is: has anyone ever proven that there is a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses?” (Emphasis mine.) > [@](#): > > In any case, if some concepts are not amenable to proof or disproff via logic, science, or any other method of reasoning that humans use, what is the point of debating these issues, since all debating involves human reasoning, and if that can’t prove or disprove the point of the debate, that renders the debate useless, does it not? With the new goalpost, the answer changes. Necessary existence is easily provable with logic. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to prove [that 1 + 1 = 2], it’s a matter of definition of the numbers 1 and 2. It was proved by [Guissepe Peano](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Peano.html). Here’s one version: [http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html](http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/283 "2005-03-07T12:13:05Z")
> [@Poelrius](#): > > What is a metaphysical thing? My OP suggested explicitly that this debate might be had elsewhere - I’d be very grateful if you could start a new thread. What I’m trying to do here is see _how far we can get_ with the **physical**. Just as I have the to return to my party, it seems people are ready to leave following a comment which some guests somehow find _definitive_, while I consider that it _reinforces_ the physical nature of memory (and **memory access** ) rather than impugning it in any way, but I’ll do what I can to keep them here nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/284 "2005-03-07T12:21:31Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But you said, “The question, **scientifically speaking** , is: has anyone ever proven that there is a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses?” (Emphasis mine.) Immediately after that I said: > [@](#): > > I guess one way would be to assume everything is physical, and then derive a contradiction, thus proving that not everything is physical. which indicates the possibility of a proof using logic. (I guess I was not being clear enough, but for me, a scientist would accept as proof not only scientific observations, but any formal proof using logic) > [@Liberal](#): > > With the new goalpost, the answer changes. Necessary existence is easily provable with logic. What is the “new goalpost”? Also, can you provide links to the proof of necessary existence? > [@](#): > > It was proved by [Guissepe Peano](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Peano.html). Here’s one version: > > [http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html](http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html) That’s not much of a proof. If you notice the link you provided says that “The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N”. And then it states > [@](#): > > Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2 > > Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1. > Then 1 + 1 = 1’ = 2 Q.E.D. So, the “proof” is just plug-and-chug based on the definition of the natural numbers 1 and 2 and the definition of ‘+’ and ‘=’, just as I said in my previous comments. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/285 "2005-03-07T12:27:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > My OP suggested explicitly that this debate might be had elsewhere - I’d be very grateful if you could start a new thread. What I’m trying to do here is see _how far we can get_ with the **physical**. Sorry if I sidetracked the conversation away from what you were intending. I will stop posting and let you guys continue. In any case, I wasn’t trying to hijack the thread, I honestly think that if someone is trying to say that “X is physical”, it is imperative to define what else X could be, and why it cannot be those things. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/286 "2005-03-07T12:32:52Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Immediately after that I said: > > which indicates the possibility of a proof using logic. > > (I guess I was not being clear enough, but for me, a scientist would accept as proof not only scientific observations, but any formal proof using logic) We’ll see. > [@](#): > > What is the “new goalpost”? > > Also, can you provide links to the proof of necessary existence? [http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/win2003/entries/actualism/proofNE.html](http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/win2003/entries/actualism/proofNE.html) > [@](#): > > That’s not much of a proof. > > If you notice the link you provided says that “The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N”. And then it states > So, the “proof” is just plug-and-chug based on the definition of the natural numbers 1 and 2 and the definition of ‘+’ and ‘=’, just as I said in my previous comments. Holy cow. 😃 I honestly don’t know what to say. I now leave this thread to you and yours… ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/287 "2005-03-07T12:35:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Great! This has been enjoyable, but Other-wise has solved it. We can leave what remains as a debate about computers. Thread started. I wish I’d taken more time on rewriting the opening post, but then again that’s going to be a lot easier to do after a bit of discussion anyway. 😉 ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/288 "2005-03-07T13:00:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > This might well be a topic for a new thread, and if so, feel free to take it there. For now, I’ll just touch on it here. It turns out that awareness serves a _meta_physical purpose — moral accountability. Because your consciousness has been made aware of memory events, you cannot say that you didn’t know. Remember the little old lady we spoke of way back when? (It might even have been in the other thread.) Awareness serves God’s purpose as a means of allowing you to make moral decisions. Again, whether he created this deliberately (ID style) or not is of no relevance. It serves His purpose all the same. I’m (obviously) somewhat obsessed with the topic, and may indeed start a new thread… but not right now. While my wife has shown infinite patience and understanding this weekend; my work has not. (on preview, it looks as if someone has started a new thread. I’ll check it out.) For now a quick question/clarification: Awareness allows us to make _only_ moral decisions, or _any_ decision that would otherwise overwhelm or confuse our _non_-conscious decision-making programs? ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/289 "2005-03-07T13:07:32Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But I never said this: I said there was a physical neural association between visual memories (geon configurations) and the linguistic word for them. The linguistic modules are in the left hemisphere, the left side of the visual field is in the right: when the neural links between the two hemispheres are **severed** , people _cannot name the objects in their right visual field_. It sounds as if you’re saying that memory associations must have _some_ physical location in the brain. I’ve already acknowledged this to be the case. But let’s be clear: neural connections are formed, reformed, broken, and morphed all the time. Brains are incredibly complex and plastic; it’s unlikely that neural associations are the _only_ memory associations (e.g., glial cells may be involved) and there’s nothing sacrosanct about the left hemisphere for the location of linguistic modules. > [@](#): > > Because, like the linguistic sound and the object in the visual field, they are occurring _at the same time_. During toddlerhood, when a atering can is in my visual field forming a visual memory, my parents say the words “watering can”, forming a literal, physical association between that sound and that memory. That question was a re-wording of your own question to me. Your first answer to it was _location_, now you say it’s _timing_. I’m not following what you’re trying to say here. > [@](#): > > You must tell me why those physical entities and processes cannot explain memory: if it is merely your preference that they do not, I let Ockham’s Razor do my work for me. I don’t think I can address “physical entities and processes” until you answer the question I asked in Post #230: “_Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean by “physical terms”. Does it mean that something is de facto physical if it’s merely associated with the physical?_ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/290 "2005-03-07T13:09:04Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > I now leave this thread to you and yours… Wait, you forgot your hat! Shame, I now have the time to respond to your IMO overly hasty conclusion that there are aspects of human memory which are _fundamentally different_ to computer memories, and it seems you’re no longer interested in my replies. Shall I simply begin a thread based on your post from 4 hours ago? ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/291 "2005-03-07T13:09:26Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > How does this differ from your example? If I’m reading you correctly, it doesn’t. Actually, what you’re describing sounds a lot like what Andy Clark calls “extended cognition”, the idea that we use resources in our environment to support and extend our own cognition (like when we use a pencil and paper to do long multiplication). (on preview, I see **Lib** has beaten me to the punch) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/292 "2005-03-07T13:24:46Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > It sounds as if you’re saying that memory associations must have some physical location in the brain. I’ve already acknowledged this to be the case. But let’s be clear: neural connections are formed, reformed, broken, and morphed all the time. Brains are incredibly complex and plastic; it’s unlikely that neural associations are the _only_ memory associations (e.g., glial cells may be involved) and there’s nothing sacrosanct about the left hemisphere for the location of linguistic modules. All of which I _agree_ with: are we not quibbling over who is providing the most textbook summary of linguistic association here? > [@](#): > > Your first answer to it was _location_, now you say it’s _timing_. **Both being spatio-temporal** , yes? I’m saying it’s _both_: the mug in my visual field activates some neurons, not others (“location”). My parents say the sound “mug” at the same time (“timing”). > [@](#): > > Maybe I’’m not understanding what you mean by “physical terms”. Does it mean that something is de facto physical if it’s merely associated with the physical? What I’m doing here is asking you, now practically _begging_ you, to tell me why, how, or in what way you think physical entities and processes are _insufficient_. You say “information” mightn’t be physical and so I describe memory **access** and **association** for you in spatio-temporal entities. You then _repeat_ that it’s not necessarily sufficient. Tell me what hoops I can jump through for you, and I will attempt it. But please, don;t just leave without even holding them up and watching my performance, however clumsy and amusing it might turn out. ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/293 "2005-03-07T13:52:12Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What I’m doing here is asking you, now practically _begging_ you, to tell me why, how, or in what way you think physical entities and processes are _insufficient_. You say “information” mightn’t be physical and so I describe memory **access** and **association** for you in spatio-temporal entities. You then _repeat_ that it’s not necessarily sufficient. Tell me what hoops I can jump through for you, and I will attempt it. But please, don;t just leave without even holding them up and watching my performance, however clumsy and amusing it might turn out. **Sentient** , I explained in post #253, to the best of my ability, why I think physical entities and processes, as I understand them, are _insufficient_. Repeatedly, I have not only acknowledged but _suggested_ that entities we describe in terms of spatio-temporal properties are necessary for memory access and association. We’re still disagreeing, so I don’t know what else to do except to try and get a better handle on what you mean by “physical terms”. As I understand it now, “physical terms” seems to mean, as **Lib** put it, “everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t”. ---
**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 7, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/294 "2005-03-07T14:09:18Z")
This has been a most enjoyable and educational thread. I share **SentientMeat** ’s reservations about moving into the metaphysical and would like to continue the debate about that. Unfortunately I, like **other-wise** , am hard pressed for time; I will not be able to continue posting quite so much but will try to lurk as best I can. I look forward to reading **Arwin** ’s [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305744), and would like to point out a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305734) started by **FinnAgain** that may be of interest. At the same time, I can’t leave without addressing this: > [@Liberal](#): > > …what purpose does awareness serve? Obviously, it serves no physical purpose. It is just how the process works. The “why MUST I be aware?” dilemma that so bothered you before, wondering why the brain didn’t just do all this in the background, is ready to be addressed…It turns out that awareness serves a _meta_physical purpose – moral accountability…Awareness serves God’s purpose as a means of allowing you to make moral decisions. If one starts with a metaphysical conclusion to prove, one can almost always find some set of axioms that will prove it. Some arguments are better than others, some are worse. If you define the purpose of awareness as “moral accountability”, then that’s what it is. You might even start with other, simpler definitions and deduce it through logical steps. However, I see no justification for assigning purpose to the process beyond a vainglorious need to find meaning in patterns. Like the evolutionary process – it just is, no purpose necessary. (Although we certainly often make the mistake of assigning one.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/295 "2005-03-07T14:30:42Z")
> [@](#): > > We’re still disagreeing, so I don’t know what else to do except to try and get a better handle on what you mean by “physical terms”. Spatio-temporal entities let’s say, but let’s put that …ahem…aside for the …cough… moment. We agree that _some_ objects and processes are physical - let’s just see what we can do with _them_. If I introduce something you question the physicality of, call an immediate halt and we can explore it. > [@o-w](#): > > Sentient, I explained in post #253, to the best of my ability, why I think physical entities and processes, as I understand them, are insufficient. OK, let’s stay here for a while. If at any point it occurs to you that “Hey, maybe physical processes _are_ sufficient”, all I ask is that you tell me so. > [@](#): > > Whatever Hoodoo was aware of when he was aware of Mary (associations and all), no one else can ever know. That’s correct. A digital photograph encoded under an unfamiliar protocol would _also_ be unknowable to a third party in precisely the same way. The only difference here is the process by which signals from the light-sensitive receptors are sent to memory domains: again, the “key” to that process could literally be a physical, metal key which unlocked a connecting switch, or a swipecard with an electronic encryption key on a magnetic strip. In the human case, the key is altogether more complex: it is the past history of the visual field when it was _forming_ those simple memory elements during childhood. The third party _cannot know_ what objects caused (and gradually reinforced) what neural activity back in **Hoodoo** ’s childhood: the memory is very definitely and very strongly **encrypted** by Hoodoo’s _entire past history_! Now, do we agree that the entire past history of Hoodoo’s environment is still **physical** , _ie._ purely and simply different physical locations at different times? > [@](#): > > However, Hoodoo has forgotten “Something About Mary”; he is not currently aware of it, and hasn’t been for some time (other systems in his brain have not accessed “Something About Mary”, at least, not in a way that lead to it’s inclusion in Hoodoo’s awareness). Then, alas, Hoodoo has a mild cerebral ischemia; in the resulting glutamate cascade, a few select neurons in the access pathways to “Something About Mary” are permanently damaged. Neural group A is still happily firing away, but all other brain systems are blocked from accessing it. As you’ve pointed out in _my_ posts, it mightn’t be quite this way: The _entire_ neural basis might have ‘degraded’ slightly rather than just a few key neurons degrading terminally. When he says he “can’t remember it”, he’s simply expressing a position of a needle in a continuum rather than a CAN/CAN’T digital switch: his memory has physically degraded past the point where the correlation process returns a signal strong enough to scrape past some threshold t which he’d um and ahh about whether he remembered it or not. > [@](#): > > “Something About Mary” will never again be part of Hoodoo’’s awareness, nor help form the basis of a new composite permanent memory. Just as in a computer memory, images might degrade until a correlation returned no greater a positve result than a _random_ image. > [@](#): > > If someone were to poke a 25th century x-ray microscope into Hoodoo’’s skull to take a look at neural group A, what would they see? They’d see neural group A firing away, but they would not be able to discern a pattern to the firing, at least, not one that can be interpreted as ““Something About Mary””. Because consciousness is closed, that interpretation was reserved for Hoodoo and Hoodoo alone. I hope that we agree that they would have a fundamentally similar problem with _silicon_ computers from this era, yes? > [@](#): > > The physical neurons in group A are intact, as is their firing pattern. Again, it mightn’t be quite like that, but I’d suggest that it’s not too important anyway. The problem here is that there is no **access** to those memories, ad I’ve tried to explain how that’s still a _physical_ difficulty, encryption-wise. Would you agree that the difficulty is fundamentally similar to Hoodoo somehow having a detachable memory module he could unplug from his head and drop down the Challenger Deep? ---
**Author:** ![Foible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Foible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foible)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/296 "2005-03-07T15:55:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But what about the sort of event you describe? You smell something, and it reminds you of Mary. It’s the same process. The immediate memory of the smell, S, is synthesized into R, or certain elements of R, so that the next time you recall that element or those elements, they will also be associated with the circumstances of the new smell event. The old memory, “Mary smells wonderful” is now changed into the new memory, “Mary smells wonderful, very much like the smell in that antiques shop.” Thanks for the detailed explaination. I agree that the memory will be sysnthesized by being recalled but like your first example with Joe mentioning Mary in passing, the new associations might be minor. If Mary was a major life event for you (first love or something) then the minor associations may not be recalled the next time you think of Mary. You can be bringing up the “Mary smells wonderful” memory without being aware of how often or infrequently you’re doing so. Childhood memories are often like this, when we try to remember them we get the layered composite we’ve created but when they’re triggered by another stimulus we get a memory with fewer associations. I’ll follow these discussions to the new threads, there is a lot of interesting stuff flying around here ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/297 "2005-03-07T16:42:34Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Wait, you forgot your hat! > > Shame, I now have the time to respond to your IMO overly hasty conclusion that there are aspects of human memory which are _fundamentally different_ to computer memories, and it seems you’re no longer interested in my replies. Shall I simply begin a thread based on your post from 4 hours ago? Sentient, do you honestly expect me to debate with a man — Polerius, wasn’t it? — who doesn’t believe that Peano’s axioms prove 1 + 1 = 2 and that science does? Even after he is shown that he is mistaken? Why would you wish this fate on me? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/298 "2005-03-07T16:47:28Z")
> [@Foible](#): > > Thanks for the detailed explaination. I agree that the memory will be sysnthesized by being recalled but like your first example with Joe mentioning Mary in passing, the new associations might be minor. If Mary was a major life event for you (first love or something) then the minor associations may not be recalled the next time you think of Mary. You can be bringing up the “Mary smells wonderful” memory without being aware of how often or infrequently you’re doing so. Childhood memories are often like this, when we try to remember them we get the layered composite we’ve created but when they’re triggered by another stimulus we get a memory with fewer associations. Yes, and our model predicts that. The brain need synthesize very little if any new memory when consciousness is already prepared to accept the immediate memory as it exists. > [@](#): > > I’ll follow these discussions to the new threads, there is a lot of interesting stuff flying around here The new thread turned out to be more comprehensive than I expected. I’ll monitor it for a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/299 "2005-03-07T16:53:13Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > If one starts with a metaphysical conclusion to prove, one can almost always find some set of axioms that will prove it. What the…? I did NOT start with any metaphysical conclusion. As a matter of fact, I kept insisting to Other-wise that we specifically avoid such matters and that they are not relevant. I also specifically said that NOW THAT OUR DEDUCTIONS ARE FINISHED, we can discuss them. I mean, do you actually read my posts before commenting on them? Damn. Just plain damn. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/300 "2005-03-07T16:55:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Sentient, do you honestly expect me to debate with a man — Polerius, wasn’t it? — who doesn’t believe that Peano’s axioms prove 1 + 1 = 2 and that science does? Even after he is shown that he is mistaken? Why would you wish this fate on me? No, no, Lib, of course not. He has even opened another thread for that, as I asked him (and, indeed, in which I am divesting him of his mistake). I wish you to continue your debate with me, since you came to some conclusion you’re very excited about in my absence, and I’d to explore it with you more fully. The last thing I wish to see is you popping up in another thread saying “Well, as you can clearly see [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5917536&postcount=253), other-wise and I showed that analytics cannot be explained by physical entities or processes”. Specifically, I wish to convince you that difficulty in _accessing_ or _associating_ memories is no _less_ physical a problem than that of forming them in the first place - see my reply to **other-wise** above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=16)