# 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:** 19
**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 8, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/361 "2005-03-08T23:18:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As for Darth’s watering can - that can be answered through general semantics. The image of the can is a tag for a non-existent thing. If I write “Invisible Pink Unicorn” on paper, the words are physical (as pencil markings) but the IPU does not become physical by my creating a tag for her. Yes! ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/362 "2005-03-09T00:06:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But that’s the whole of nature. Neither the image nor the wall is dinstinguished in that regard. > > It is relevant because you suggested that everything that goes on in the “mind” (an ambiguous term) is physical. I suggested that you might mean the brain, in which case the image on the wall is not the same as the image in your brain. Therefore, your brain is not representing physical reality to you. A brain examining nature is akin to an axiom that begs its conclusion. Ok, let’s take ‘mind’ of the equation and call it brain. The image on the wall is not the same as the image in your brain. Obviously. If you look at how the eye transmits the information on the projected image to the brain, this is glaringly (couldn’t resist the pun) obvious. I never said such a thing either - just that the received light is physical, the transmission of this light through the optic nerves to the brain is physical, the manipulation, interpretation and/or storage of that image in the brian is physical. That’s all. The things influence each other physically. While observing, the brain contains a specially coded reflection of Reality that we can call a reality in terms of how it relates to Reality, but it is in itself a Reality - in the sense that the brain, a physical thing, allows this information to exist in itself, physically. But perhaps we’re agreeing then, more or less. ---
**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 9, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/363 "2005-03-09T02:07:48Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And I’m saying that memories which one isn’t _aware_ of is an **access** problem, which is no less physical a problem than dropping your Flash memory in a lake. It’s not an access _problem_, it’s an access _impossibility_, even in principle. Your description sounds as if we’re talking about an encrypted file whose key is missing… as if the file still contains information that might be decoded. That’s not the case here; without the awareness, there is no information. The only way around that is if consciousness is _not_ closed, and I haven’t heard anyone here make that claim. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/364 "2005-03-09T09:41:17Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > Agreed. But although the image of the can in your mind or in Photoshop got there by purely physical processes, the can is imaginary. Hmm, a digital photograph (doctored or not) is “imaginary”? I’m trying it on, but it doesn’t quite fit. I’d say that whereas the original watering can was made of atoms (which might now be scattered to the four winds, _ie._ ‘destroyed’), the digital photograph is made of the photons from it (or, ultimately, atoms _affected by_ those photons or the re-emitted identical ones). If photons are imaginary, I guess I’d say my mental image is too. But, of course, I think photons are _physical_. Not that it matters too much I guess, **Hoodoo** : We language using computers are _bound_ to use language a little differently to each other. > [@Lib](#): > > An image is projected onto the surface of quasar APM08279+5255, the most luminous object in the universe, somewhere between 4 and 5 million billion times brighter than the Sun. Is it the case that there is an image on the wall dinstinct from the wall but not an image on the surface of the quasar? The photons travelling away from us are reflected back to us: that is the nature of “image” (which, like I said, is more of a _process_ than an _object_, and I hope we agree that processes can be as physical as objects). The interaction between those photons and the wall is fundamentally similar to the interaction between those photons and the quasar. Yet again, our senses are **statistical** : if those returning photons are only a tiny, tiny proportion of the total incident photons on our eyes, they will be as indistinguishable as black things in the dark. This is a _physical_ description of the situation which I have _proposed_ rather than _asserted_, yes? You give me a situation, I propose a physical description, you point out its flaws, I again have right of reply. That’s what I started this thread _for_, although I’m delighted with the bonuses we’ve had here in addition. And I’m off to Australia until April on Thursday, so let’s get cracking! > [@other-wise](#): > > It’s not an access _problem_, it’s an access _impossibility_, even in principle. Agreed, but computer memory access can be literally impossible _too_ - consider **Hoodoo** _destroying_ his memory module by throwing it into the Sun instead of down Challenger Deep. > [@](#): > > Your description sounds as if we’re talking about an encrypted file whose key is missing…… as if the file still contains information that might be decoded. If the encryption is strong enough it **can’t** be decrypted - perfectly encrypted memory is indistinguishable from _noise_ > [@](#): > > That’s not the case here; without the awareness, there is no information. Ah, but you said the neural pattern A was still firing away, and neither **Hoodoo** nor the 25th Centurians could _access_ it. Think about it - the situations are equivalent. Impossibility of access to memory can arise in many different ways: the transmission medium can become blocked or the substrate itself (biological or electronic) can be vaporised or hit with a hammer. These are still processes as physical as the tree falling. (Any progress there, by the way? Your position now seems to be that the cloud is physical but the _storm_ isn’t, the particle is physical but the _wave_ isn’t, and so on.) > [@](#): > > The only way around that is if consciousness is not closed, and I haven’t heard anyone here make that claim. I’m not claiming it either, but I’m steering clear of terms like “consciousness” for the moment, while we make the baby steps. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/365 "2005-03-09T11:30:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You are not claiming the image **is** the wall, surely. I’m claiming that there is no image in se — just a wall. The image is a _perception_ of a _portion_ of the _surface_ of the wall. It’s like any optical illusion: how you perceive it depends on how you frame it and formulate it. Two photos: (1) close-up, you see a woman drinking tea — ah! It’s a woman drinking tea; (2) pan back, and you see a wall with an image of a woman drinking tea — ah! It’s a wall. > [@](#): > > And the characteristics of the photons being ejected from the wall (which I took into account in my post) are changed depending on if there is a picture being projected, a light shone, or nothing impinging the wall except room light. But looking at it that way, the room light or any other light is just an image too! Light is light. The image on the wall with only the sun shining on it is just an image of the wall itself. If your projector shone only white light at the wall, would you say that you see an image? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > We don’t have any evidence whether god is physical or not, assuming he exists. Actually, we do. He must be physical in at least some sense, but He must be metaphysical, too. This is easily proved, but outside the scope of this discussion. > [@](#): > > Do you consider the raw image, composed of photons, physical? (I bet this has already been asked.) The photons, yes; the image, no. The image is not composed of photons; it is composed of perception. At what speed does an image travel in vaccuo? If you say c, then the image is indistinguishable from the photons, and therefore nothing but a synonym or metaphor. If you say something else, then your composition assertion is difficult to defend. > [@](#): > > There are other answers. First, the world is physical so no god does exist. (You areasking a physicalist to posit that physicalism has been refuted, and then you say _hah!_ As for me, I have no answer until I see evidence of god. I do have evidence of images and perceptions. You have evidence of images and perceptions of God as well. But that is neither here nor there. And I am not asking the physicalist to posit that physicalism has been refuted. Quite the opposite, I am asking that he relinquish his postulate because it is the same as his conclusion. No reasonable man will argue in circles. > [@](#): > > And the question is: do you consider a manufacturing process physical? A manufacturing process is not made of elementary particles, it is not something you can hold. The answer to this question will tell if we are talking at cross-purposes. Manufacturing processes are a lot easier to discuss than images or perceptions. He makes widgits. He is physical. Widgits are physical. Makes is predicative. It is a description of the accessibility relation between him and widgits. It is a Euclidean relation, where whatever is possible is necessarily possible (or in this case, whatever is made is necessarily made): (wRv & wRu) -\> vRu. If it is true that he makes widgits, then both he and the widgits are necessary for the making. But the making is not necessary. Some arbitrary accesss may be assigned, and the statement is false. He eats widgits might not be true. > [@](#): > > Sure. The photons get interpreted all sorts of ways. The model built in your brain from them is neither the wall nor the photons, it is a function of the photons (and not even the wall, since you see only the image of the wall, not the wall itself.) Therefore, photons have no accessibility relation with reality. If they did, they’d bring the wall itself into our brains. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/366 "2005-03-09T11:36:48Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Ok, let’s take ‘mind’ of the equation and call it brain. The image on the wall is not the same as the image in your brain. Obviously. If you look at how the eye transmits the information on the projected image to the brain, this is glaringly (couldn’t resist the pun) obvious. I never said such a thing either - just that the received light is physical, the transmission of this light through the optic nerves to the brain is physical, the manipulation, interpretation and/or storage of that image in the brian is physical. **That’s all. The things influence each other physically.** While observing, the brain contains a specially coded reflection of Reality that we can call a reality in terms of how it relates to Reality, but it is in itself a Reality - in the sense that the brain, a physical thing, allows this information to exist in itself, physically. > > But perhaps we’re agreeing then, more or less. (Portion emphasized for context.) And the question then is whether _influence_ is physical. The moon’s gravity influences the tides. Remove the moon, and there is merely no tide. But remove the influence, and there is no universe. It is a contingency upon gravity. If the universe is physical, and physical is all there is, then the universe must be contingent on nothing. But obviously, it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/367 "2005-03-09T11:55:10Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > (Portion emphasized for context.) > > And the question then is whether _influence_ is physical. The moon’s gravity influences the tides. Remove the moon, and there is merely no tide. But remove the influence, and there is no universe. It is a contingency upon gravity. If the universe is physical, and physical is all there is, then the universe must be contingent on nothing. But obviously, it isn’t. I don’t follow you here at all. If you remove gravity, then the universe would be one very low-density static (as in non-moving) dust-cloud, possibly. You’d change a physical property of its tiniest particles, that strongly determines its structure, but none of this means that gravity isn’t something physical. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/368 "2005-03-09T12:05:25Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > The image on the wall with only the sun shining on it is just an image of the wall itself. A minor correction I’d make here: it is a reflected image of the _sun_, and the optically diffusive properties of the wall (as opposed to, say, a mirror) prevents our visual cognitive modules from returning a correlation value higher than that for any other object whose photons had been diffused so (_ie._ we cannot distinguish between the image of the sun and an image of something else, like a torch or a backlit slide). > [@](#): > > If your projector shone only white light at the wall, would you say that you see an image? Yes, a diffuse image of the projector filament. > [@](#): > > The image is not composed of photons; it is composed of perception. The photons are still there when nobody’s around to do any perceiving, yes? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/369 "2005-03-09T12:13:33Z")
(And to pre-empt a possible follow-up, our retina will register an image of the wall and the sun’s diffuse reflection in it, just as when we turn our eyes towards a mirror we see the mirror _and_ the reflections in it.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/370 "2005-03-09T12:16:54Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > I don’t follow you here at all. If you remove gravity, then the universe would be one very low-density static (as in non-moving) dust-cloud, possibly. You’d change a physical property of its tiniest particles, that strongly determines its structure, but none of this means that gravity isn’t something physical. I’m not saying that gravity isn’t physical; I’m saying that _influence_ isn’t. Hence, what I wrote: “And the question then is whether influence is physical.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/371 "2005-03-09T12:26:05Z")
Incidentally, **Lib** , I have already admitted that there are entities for which my physical explanations are rather poor, thus necessitating a “metaphysics of the gaps” argument: Like I said, closing those gaps is the challenge of the millennium, and all I would seek to do here is throw some hopeful ropes across. However, I don’t think “images” are such entities - the physical explanation for them is arguably as strong as that for objects themselves. _“Memories”_ might be, hence the thread. “Truth”, “love” and “seven” are further removed still - I’m just seeing how far we can get with images and memory to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/372 "2005-03-09T13:05:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m not saying that gravity isn’t physical; I’m saying that _influence_ isn’t. Hence, what I wrote: “And the question then is whether influence is physical.” 😃 And hence my confusion, because I don’t see the distinction between physical objects, physical gravity and ‘non-physical?’ influence … ? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/373 "2005-03-09T13:28:11Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > And hence my confusion, because I don’t see the distinction between physical objects, physical gravity and ‘non-physical?’ influence … ? At this point, it isn’t clear to me what criteria something must meet before you will not call it physical. How about not-gravity? Is not-gravity physical? For that matter, how about not-physical? Is not-physical physical? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/374 "2005-03-09T14:01:33Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > At this point, it isn’t clear to me what criteria something must meet before you will not call it physical. It cannot be [explained](http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/explanat.htm) by the physical. Of course, that’s a debate in itself: Some people don’t think that, say, evolution or gravity have been so explained yet. But one doen; need to be a crank to hold that some entities _haven’t_ been so explained yet, and so they are quite reasonably considered _meta_physical. ---
**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 9, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/375 "2005-03-09T14:28:21Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Hmm, a digital photograph (doctored or not) is “imaginary”? I’m trying it on, but it doesn’t quite fit.** I’d say that whereas the original watering can was made of atoms (which might now be scattered to the four winds, _ie._ ‘destroyed’), the digital photograph is made of the photons from it (or, ultimately, atoms _affected by_ those photons or the re-emitted identical ones). If photons are imaginary, I guess I’d say my mental image is too. But, of course, I think photons are _physical_. Not that it matters too much I guess, **Hoodoo** : We language using computers are _bound_ to use language a little differently to each other. Of course it doesn’t fit. The photograph, if you were to make it, would **not** be imaginary. I have a book in my hand. On the cover are printed the words “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. The book is not imaginary. The adventures are. Same situation. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/376 "2005-03-09T14:37:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > At this point, it isn’t clear to me what criteria something must meet before you will not call it physical. I’ve given those criteria before though, sort of. Everything is physical unless someone (or I myself) can come up with a good reason why something isn’t. 😉 I finally found (although only the paper version) my essay applying possible world theory to a novel by A.S. Byatt (Possession). That deals with different layers of Reality we subjective beings have access to through different means. It allows us to talk about things further away from Reality and closer to Reality. So basically everything is physical in principle, but we can categorise things whichever way we like if that happens to be useful to us. We can talk about virtual and imaginary and so on, but in my view they will always be related to reality or Reality, and not to physical, which encompasses all (c.f. physics). Again, that’s my view. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/377 "2005-03-09T14:38:25Z")
Just to be clear here **Hoodoo** : The photograph of a real-life watering can is not imaginary. Agreed? The photograph of a guy in a Darth Vader costume is not imaginary. Agreed? The Photoshop combination of the two non-imaginary photographs, in your opinion, is …? My visual memory of a real-life watering can is not imaginary. Agreed? My visual memory of a photograph of a guy in a Darth Vader costume is not imaginary. Agreed? My mental combination of those two visual memories is …? ---
**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 9, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/378 "2005-03-09T15:17:29Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Agreed, but computer memory access can be literally impossible _too_ - consider **Hoodoo** _destroying_ his memory module by throwing it into the Sun instead of down Challenger Deep. I agree with the above, but I’d still prefer that we stick to the example I gave. > [@](#): > > If the encryption is strong enough it **can’t** be decrypted - perfectly encrypted memory is indistinguishable from _noise_. Indistinguishable from noise. I can’t even begin to tell you how much I agree with that statement. > [@](#): > > Ah, but you said the neural pattern A was still firing away, and neither **Hoodoo** nor the 25th Centurians could _access_ it. Think about it - the situations are equivalent. Impossibility of access to memory can arise in many different ways: the transmission medium can become blocked or the substrate itself (biological or electronic) can be vaporised or hit with a hammer. These are still processes as physical as the tree falling. (Any progress there, by the way? Your position now seems to be that the cloud is physical but the _storm_ isn’t, the particle is physical but the _wave_ isn’t, and so on.) I’m not getting your point here. Are you saying that blocking access to memory is a process that involves physical objects? If so, I agree, but I thought you knew that already. As far as _processes_ being physical, no, I’m not quite ready to grant that, however, I’m having trouble putting my reservations into words. (on preview, I see that **Lib** ’s discussion of accessibility relations with **Voyager** may be starting to clear this up.) > [@](#): > > I’m not claiming it either, but I’m steering clear of terms like “consciousness” for the moment, while we make the baby steps. I’m not steering clear of terms like consciousness for two reasons: First, “remembering” is being consciously aware of a memory, and a memory that cannot be remembered isn’t a memory at all (as you say, it’s “noise”). Second, _if_ I’ve shown that awareness serves no physical purpose, and conscious awareness is inextricably linked with memory, we don’t _need_ to take the baby steps. Why go back and take baby steps when we’ve already arrived at where we’re headed? By the way **Sentient** , have a great time in Australia (I’m quite envious; I have friends from Australia, I’ve never been there, and I’ve been dying to go for awhile now.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/379 "2005-03-09T15:25:15Z")
Arwin, the proposition that everything is physical unless otherwise proven is not a conclusion; it’s an axiom. If it were a conclusion, there would be nothing otherwise to prove. Again, is not-physical physical? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/380 "2005-03-09T15:38:08Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > Are you saying that blocking access to memory is a process that involves physical objects? Yes. In other words _physical processes_. > [@](#): > > First, “remembering” is being consciously aware of a memory, and a memory that cannot be remembered isn’t a memory at all (as you say, it’s “noise”). You see, this is where I’m trying to wield Ockham’s scalpel as dextrously as I can. You propose a fundamental difference between the kind of “remembering” (as in “accessing memory”) which any computer can do, and the kind of “remembering” a _human_ does: you call that difference “awareness”. I’m asking why there necessarily _is_ such a difference. That’s why I’m starting with memory access **alone** and asking you to follow me in describing human memory that way, hollering the moment you spot something that _isn’t_ explained solely by memory access or lack thereof. So far, all I’ve seen is a discussion of memory access _per se_. > [@](#): > > Second, if I’ve shown that awareness serves no physical purpose Whoa, Halt! Why is this even _relevant_? Does gravity or magnetic north or the weather have a physical purpose? If not, does it somehow make them _metaphysical_? > [@](#): > > and conscious awareness is inextricably linked with memory, we don’t need to take the baby steps. Why go back and take baby steps when we’ve already arrived at where we’re headed? Because, just as the physical can explain processes such as falling and melting, so it _might_ explain ‘awareness’ as well. If you get carried off down the path _assuming_ that it can’t, are you really so different from a Creationist believing that physical processes simply can’t explain evolution? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=20)