# 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:** 16
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/301 "2005-03-07T16:57:55Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > 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? According to our deductions, Other-wise, if the brain is confused or overwhelmed in the process of synthesizing what to make you aware of, then that is precisely what it _will_ make you aware of — confusion, and a sense of being overwhelmed. There is no particular natural need for awareness to exist. Such an assertion consistently eluded every inference. ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/302 "2005-03-07T17:01:44Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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. I could no more resist an invitation from you to discuss these things than I could resist the heart of a Pageland watermelon. I’ll have a look at the referenced post. But I suppose that, in the future, before I engage a man in debate, I might ask him whether he believes that science proves 1 + 1 = 2, and as well as whether I mean “let’s discuss metaphysical things first” when I say “let’s not discuss metaphysical things just yet”. ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/303 "2005-03-07T17:17:11Z")
I think I found the post… > [@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_. The answer is in your question. Show me the insufficiency particles or waves. How is “insufficient” physical? (Wait! Don’t stop reading!) Shoot insufficiency through an accelerator, and show me the splats. Isn’t everything physical made of quantum particles? If not, why not? Why is the onus on me to show that the concept of insufficiency is not something physical, when the notion that it must be has arisen only lately? (No, that’s not a novitatum argument; I’m not saying it’s false because it’s new, but only that it’s new.) If insufficiency is physical, then it ought to be scientifically testable, ought it not? What is the falsifiable theory that we may test to determine that insufficiency is true? What is the empirical description of it? Again, if physical means everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t, then it doesn’t mean anything at all. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/304 "2005-03-07T17:25:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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. I do read them and respond to their content, at least to the extent that I understand that content and its implications. As I stated earlier, I’ve found them to be informative, well-informed, and stimulating. I have also attempted to reply to every question asked of me, even if I can’t make the universal claim that I’ve replied to every single one (I’m not going to go back and confirm that, though I believe it to be the case in this thread). Can you say the same? Evidently, in this case, you choose to ignore most of what I quoted. I believe I was very specific in quoting you, which preceded the sentence you extracted. I have not objected to anything in your exchanges with **other-wise** (I believe, though again, I’m not going to check every single post). It is the following statements: “It turns out that awareness serves a metaphysical purpose – moral accountability” and “Awareness serves God’s purpose as a means of allowing you to make moral decisions” to which I referred. These are the conclusions to which I was objecting. Pot, meet kettle. Damn indeed. ---
**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, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/305 "2005-03-07T17:29:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > According to our deductions, Other-wise, if the brain is confused or overwhelmed in the process of synthesizing what to make you aware of, then that is precisely what it _will_ make you aware of — confusion, and a sense of being overwhelmed. There is no particular natural need for awareness to exist. Such an assertion consistently eluded every inference. Bleh. Yet again, sloppy wording on my part. But I think you’ve answered my question; since awareness serves no physical purpose, the only way to account for it’s existence is metaphysically. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/306 "2005-03-07T17:30:47Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > If insufficiency is physical, then it ought to be scientifically testable, ought it not? Whoa! I must take full responsibility, my friend, but you parsed that _way_ off. Firstly, I _would_ say that “insufficiency” ultimately _is_ a physical state akin to “confusion”, but that’s way, way down the road I’m trying to step along with you here. I will rephrase my question thus: **If physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers, what in _human_ (or biological) cognition do you feel _cannot_ be explained thereby?** All I ask, **Lib** , is that you approach this thread just as you do threads about evolution, or cosmology, or abiogenesis. I’m trying to take you from photography to human memory and asking you to stop me whenever you consider some _fundamental_ difference appears (which I would hope we agree that there is _not_ between, say, wet and digital photography). ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/307 "2005-03-07T17:33:38Z")
> [@Digital](#): > > Pot, meet kettle. Damn indeed. They are not conclusions. They are asides. They are suggested hypotheses that we may examine with rigorous analysis whenever we feel so inclined. If your “If one starts with a metaphysical conclusion to prove, one can almost always find some set of axioms that will prove it” was not intended to say that I had begun an exercise of begging the question, then what the heck was it intended to say? And besides, your assertion is false. Here is a counter-example: \<\>A -\> ~A. I challenge you to find an axiom anyone will accept that will support that conclusion. ---
**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, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/308 "2005-03-07T17:35:25Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Bleh. Yet again, sloppy wording on my part. But I think you’ve answered my question; since awareness serves no physical purpose, the only way to account for it’s existence is metaphysically. No no, I wouldn’t say that at all! :eek: It might well exist without purpose. It’s just that its existence does not necessarily imply its physicality. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/309 "2005-03-07T17:38:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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. Halt. I don’t know what you mean when you say that a process is physical. Understand, I’m not saying it’s _not_ physical (at least not yet:)), but I don’t have a grasp of how _you_ understand the term. > [@](#): > > 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? That was worded in a way that makes me a little uneasy, but, yes, his _environment_ can be described in physical terms, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. > [@](#): > > 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. > Just as in a computer memory, images might degrade until a correlation returned no greater a positve result than a _random_ image. Granted, it mightn’t be this way. But then again, as you say, it might be. Since that’s the example I used in the scenario we’re arguing about, I’d like to stick with it. The point is, regardless of whether or not there’s a threshold involved, he either remembers or he does not. > [@](#): > > Just as in a computer memory, images might degrade until a correlation returned no greater a positve result than a random image. Agreed. > [@](#): > > I hope that we agree that they would have a fundamentally similar problem with _silicon_ computers from this era, yes? We’ll see, but yes, in principle they could run into the same problem. > [@](#): > > 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? Yes. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/310 "2005-03-07T17:38:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And besides, your assertion is false. Here is a counter-example: \<\>A -\> ~A. I challenge you to find an axiom anyone will accept that will support that conclusion. And yet again, pot meet kettle. That is why the word “almost” was included. Do you even read my posts? ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/311 "2005-03-07T17:42:35Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Whoa! I must take full responsibility, my friend, but you parsed that _way_ off. > > Firstly, I _would_ say that “insufficiency” ultimately _is_ a physical state akin to “confusion”, but that’s way, way down the road I’m trying to step along with you here. I will rephrase my question thus: > > **If physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers, what in _human_ (or biological) cognition do you feel _cannot_ be explained thereby?** > > All I ask, **Lib** , is that you approach this thread just as you do threads about evolution, or cosmology, or abiogenesis. I’m trying to take you from photography to human memory and asking you to stop me whenever you consider some _fundamental_ difference appears (which I would hope we agree that there is _not_ between, say, wet and digital photography). What am I to do if I do not accept the premise “physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers”? I seem to be finding myself in the position of your threads about the political quiz (which, by the way are so great an achievement in SDMB Great Debates that they likely will never be matched), wherein I am bound to piddle along accepting every premise for the sake of argument until the conclusion is reached which, because I’ve accepted all the premises, I must now accept. I mean, I will gladly concede pre-emptively that, given all your premises are true and your inferences valid, your argument is sound. I will concede that before I even know what your conclusion is. If all you need is a sounding board, commenting only on whether you’re applying valid rules of logic, then I’m willing to be that as a favor to you. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/312 "2005-03-07T17:47:40Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > That is why the word “almost” was included. Well then, I suppose your assertion almost makes sense. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/313 "2005-03-07T17:49:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No no, I wouldn’t say that at all! :eek: It might well exist without purpose. It’s just that its existence does not necessarily imply its physicality. :smack: Which is why you kept insisting that metaphysical matters are irrelevant. Keep keeping me honest, **Lib** , I’m going to need to stay very precise out here in the trenches. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/314 "2005-03-07T17:54:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Halt. I don’t know what you mean when you say that a process is physical. Understand, I’m not saying it’s not physical (at least not yet), but I don’t have a grasp of how you understand the term. Good - this is how we’ll make progress, I think. A physical process is just a temporal _change_ in a physical _object_. The ice is physical, and “melting” is _just as physical_. The body is physical, and “falling” is so too. The photograph is physical, and so is photograph **y**. > [@](#): > > That was worded in a way that makes me a little uneasy, but, yes, his environment can be described in physical terms, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. Because his environment was what _caused_ that neural activity in the first place. Not knowing his environment at all of those times when he was _forming_ those memories is partly why they are _unknowable_ to the third party. > [@](#): > > Granted, it mightn’t be this way. But then again, as you say, it might be. Since that’s the example I used in the scenario we’re arguing about, I’d like to stick with it. The point is, regardless of whether or not there’s a threshold involved, he either remembers or he does not. OK, I’m happy to proceed so. Just to check we’re still on track, can we agree that it can also be said about a computer or digital camera that it “either remembers or not”? Given that you largely agree with the rest, it seems that our focus is drawn to this process of memory _access_. If you accept that “melting”, “falling” and “photography” are all processes which are _as physical_ as everyday objects, would you accept that memory _access_ (such as retrieving Hoodoo’s module from Challenger Deep) is aphysical process too? ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/315 "2005-03-07T18:06:14Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > What am I to do if I do not accept the premise “physical processes and entities explain all aspects of silicon computers”? I seem to be finding myself in the position of your threads about the political quiz (which, by the way are so great an achievement in SDMB Great Debates that they likely will never be matched), wherein I am bound to piddle along accepting every premise for the sake of argument until the conclusion is reached which, because I’ve accepted all the premises, I must now accept. I mean, I will gladly concede pre-emptively that, given all your premises are true and your inferences valid, your argument is sound. I will concede that before I even know what your conclusion is. If all you need is a sounding board, commenting only on whether you’re applying valid rules of logic, then I’m willing to be that as a favor to you. Of course, I understand. I’m afraid the final line of my OP was rather a pre-emptive request for us not to embark on a debate of the premise that there are physical objects, specifically with you in mind - I am overjoyed that you’ve stayed with us so far. I guess, friend, that in your case, I _am_ asking you to keep that under your hat here, as you do when you debate cosmology with me, or evolution with **Finch** , or brightness or weather or any number of scientific subjects with others: Then, you debate _as though_ there were physical objects, and very ably and adeptly point out when our inferences _based on_ our observations of the objects I (and practically everyone here) _call_ “physical” are **not justified**. I can only ask that you enter this mode here also. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/316 "2005-03-07T18:21:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Of course, I understand. I’m afraid the final line of my OP was rather a pre-emptive request for us not to embark on a debate of the premise that there are physical objects, specifically with you in mind - I am overjoyed that you’ve stayed with us so far. > > I guess, friend, that in your case, I _am_ asking you to keep that under your hat here, as you do when you debate cosmology with me, or evolution with **Finch** , or brightness or weather or any number of scientific subjects with others: Then, you debate _as though_ there were physical objects, and very ably and adeptly point out when our inferences _based on_ our observations of the objects I (and practically everyone here) _call_ “physical” are **not justified**. I can only ask that you enter this mode here also. Okay. But I have no problem with the premise that physical things exist. I believe they DO exist. They just don’t exist objectively, without regard to subjectivity or conventions of thought and language. In other words, they’re not real. The problem I have is with the premise that physical things comprise the entire set of things that exist. And you don’t have to invoke God for that. Lots of atheists are not physicalists. Lots of people believe that abstractions are, well, abstract. So, as I said, it is the premise that every conceivable thing about computer memory and computer processes is physical — _that’s_ what I have a problem with. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/317 "2005-03-07T18:23:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Good - this is how we’ll make progress, I think. A physical process is just a temporal _change_ in a physical _object_. The ice is physical, and “melting” is _just as physical_. The body is physical, and “falling” is so too. The photograph is physical, and so is photograph **y**. Is change physical? What are its physical properties? > [@](#): > > Because his environment was what _caused_ that neural activity in the first place. Not knowing his environment at all of those times when he was _forming_ those memories is partly why they are _unknowable_ to the third party. I disagree. The third parties could (in principle) be aware of his environment all of those times, but they still could not be aware of _ **Hoodoo** _’s awareness of his environment. > [@](#): > > OK, I’m happy to proceed so. Just to check we’re still on track, can we agree that it can also be said about a computer or digital camera that it “either remembers or not”? Need clarification on this one. Are you asking whether or not a computer or digital camera is consciously aware of its memories? > [@](#): > > Given that you largely agree with the rest, it seems that our focus is drawn to this process of memory _access_. If you accept that “melting”, “falling” and “photography” are all processes which are _as physical_ as everyday objects, would you accept that memory _access_ (such as retrieving Hoodoo’s module from Challenger Deep) is aphysical process too? I’ll wait for your reply to the questions at the beginning of this post. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/318 "2005-03-07T18:29:03Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > Lots of people believe that abstractions are, well, abstract. OK, let’s proceed with this …er… in mind. Let us take it that there is a physical object. Is the image projected by that object onto a wall a physical object too? How about a paper photograph? How about a _digital_ photograph stored in memory? How about that photograph when it is _reactivated_? How about a sound file which plays whenever that happens? All as physical as each other so far? ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/319 "2005-03-07T18:37:28Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > Is change physical? What are its physical properties? I say yes. Do you agree? Change from solid to liquid is a _physical change_, yes? Note that if we get onto the subject of whether there are physical objects or not, we might as well debate something else entirely as far as I’m concerned. An ice cube is a physical thing. The change from ice cube to puddle is **as** physical a change as the ice cube is a phsyical object: spatio-temporal location of atoms is all we need to appeal to. > [@](#): > > I disagree. The third parties could (in principle) be aware of his environment all of those times, but they still could not be aware of Hoodoo’s awareness of his environment. But then they’d have much better _access_ to his memories, just as they would have better access to the silicon memory if they got hold of the protocol, like the Enigma codebooks, yes? > [@](#): > > Need clarification on this one. Are you asking whether or not a computer or digital camera is consciously aware of its memories? I’m not going so far yet: we’re seeing if there is any _fundamental difference_ which leaps out at you as we carefully build up this proposition. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/320 "2005-03-07T18:54:16Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I say yes. Do you agree? Change from solid to liquid is a _physical change_, yes? Note that if we get onto the subject of whether there are physical objects or not, we might as well debate something else entirely as far as I’m concerned. An ice cube is a physical thing. The change from ice cube to puddle is **as** physical a change as the ice cube is a phsyical object: spatio-temporal location of atoms is all we need to appeal to. You didn’t answer my second question: What are the physical properties of change? > [@](#): > > But then they’d have much better _access_ to his memories, just as they would have better access to the silicon memory if they got hold of the protocol, like the Enigma codebooks, yes? No, they’d have better access to _their_ memories of the physical environment that provided part of the input to **Hoodoo** ’s awareness and subsequent memory formation. > [@](#): > > I’m not going so far yet: we’re seeing if there is any _fundamental difference_ which leaps out at you as we carefully build up this proposition. Still lost. Fundamental difference between… ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=17)