# 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:** 9
**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 4, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/161 "2005-03-04T17:28:00Z")
Sorry I’m late; I’m reading/posting between clients. > [@Liberal](#): > > The flash cards would go by. You just wouldn’t recognize them. Bear with me as I explain. \<_ker- **snip** _\> Well now, _that_ was weird. I agree with absolutely everything you said in your last post. Although not your intention, you’ve handily represented _my_ understanding of cognitive processes, and have done so far more eloquently than I ever could have. And yet I _still_ feel that we’re somehow talking past each other. We must be missing something really small that’s tripping us up, or something really big we haven’t hit yet (although, to be fair, if anyone is missing anything around here, there’s a very high probability that it’s **me** ). Let me throw out two things for exploration: 1. “_Awareness would be an evolutionary disadvantage if it were too sluggish in arising_.” Then why does it arise at _all_? There’s a massive amount of coordinated brain activity that goes into forming a processed image; a mental summary of immediate and past pertinent information. Then, after awareness dawns, there’s a massive amount of coordinated brain activity that goes into forming and rearranging memories. Why the “middleman” of awareness? Who needs awareness for storing short term and long term memories, drawing inferences, developing likes and dislikes, learning, etc., when different portions of the brain are _already_ “talking” to each other, sharing, pooling, trimming, pruning and competing for information? Why aren’t those brain processes we associate with awareness doing their thing “silently”? 2. Photons are absorbed and readmitted in different wavelengths by an object. When some of those photons strike the rods and cones in my retina, an enzyme cascade ensues, transducing the energy of the photons into electro-chemical activity. This activity is shunted, altered and regenerated through many portions of my brain, causing changes in the pattern of neural firing and hormonal release. Let’s say the object was a blue ball. Photons/Wavelengths aren’t blue. Neither are my rods and cones, and my brain isn’t blue, it’s a squishy gray and white. So… _where is the blue_? Why, it’s in my _awareness_. But how can that be if electro-chemical activity in squishy gray and white neurons completely describes/accounts for awareness? ---
**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 4, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/162 "2005-03-04T18:00:34Z")
**DS** , I’m getting behind here, so I’ll apologize in advance for mutilating your posts and taking them out of sequence. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I’m simply trying to separate “awareness” at its minimum level… “Minimum” level? Is there a cutoff point? More importantly, _why_ is there a cutoff point? How is it established? > [@](#): > > I think that this is why it is important to agree that “memory” (i.e., information) has a physical basis. I’m not so sure that information _has_ a physical basis. I think information is _correlative_ with the physical, and that you can’t have information _without_ a physical basis, but they don’t appear to be identical or share the same properties. > [@](#): > > As a computer scientist, let me try this one. The trick here is that software can always be implemented in hardware. The genius of the general purpose computer is that its hardware is such that it can process various bits of software (hah! _bits_!) without being physically reconfigured. **Hoodoo Ulove** beat me to the first problem; the second problem is that I’m not sure what you mean by “without being physically reconfigured”. Could you elaborate? ---
**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 4, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/163 "2005-03-04T18:08:23Z")
I think I’ve identified my issue with **Liberal** ’s tome. It comes down to this: > [@Liberal](#): > > Thus, awareness is not extraneous at all, but rather is an integral and vital part of the process by which you do all those things that you are capable of doing, such as storing short term and long term memories, drawing inferences, developing likes and dislikes, learning, growing intellectually and emotionally, acquiring fears, conquering fears, calling upon experience, recognizing patterns, and making decisions. Without awareness, none of these would be possible. It is the last sentence (what? There were only two?) that is the crux of the matter. It gives primacy to awareness at the expense of memory. I’d say that, while awareness _can_ (and most often does) play a role in memory formation, it is not _necessary_. In the time before one is aware of sensory data, a memory can be formed. Generally speaking, we become aware of it moments later also – but in a filtered and often incomplete/incorrect form. I believe that there is recent research concerning the thallamus as a feedback loop that supports this. Note that if perceptions reach the level that one is aware of them, they may also change the initial memory. (I’m also vaguely unhappy with the term “immediate memory”, as I think it’s taking on more meaning than is deserved. But that’s what we’re using, so I’ll try to roll with it.) At any rate: > [@other-wise](#): > > 1. “_Awareness would be an evolutionary disadvantage if it were too sluggish in arising_.” Then why does it arise at _all_? > \ > Who needs awareness for storing short term and long term memories, drawing inferences, developing likes and dislikes, learning, etc., when different portions of the brain are _already_ “talking” to each other, sharing, pooling, trimming, pruning and competing for information? Why aren’t those brain processes we associate with awareness doing their thing “silently”? Awareness, given what I propose above, would be necessary for drawing inferences, which require symbols of a sort. It is not strictly necessary for storing memory or developing likes and dislikes. It is necessary for learning (of the type we normally mean; there is the matter of learned actions becoming reflexive), as learning is the recognition of similarity among abstractions. Does that make any progress and/or resolve any issues? ---
**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 4, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/164 "2005-03-04T18:24:36Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > **DS** , I’m getting behind here, so I’ll apologize in advance for mutilating your posts and taking them out of sequence. No worries. Take all the time you need. > [@](#): > > “Minimum” level? Is there a cutoff point? More importantly, _why_ is there a cutoff point? How is it established? Yes, there is a cutoff point, as evidenced by the fact that cadavers and rocks are not aware, but other things are. Why? I’m not sure there’s an answer to that, assuming I’m not taking the question the wrong way. How? That’s part of what I’m trying to get at. > [@](#): > > I’m not so sure that information _has_ a physical basis. I think information is _correlative_ with the physical, and that you can’t have information _without_ a physical basis, but they don’t appear to be identical or share the same properties. I’m not clear on the distinction you’re making. If you can’t have information without a physical basis, then information has a physical basis. > [@](#): > > **Hoodoo Ulove** beat me to the first problem; the second problem is that I’m not sure what you mean by “without being physically reconfigured”. Could you elaborate? Simply this – a configuration of logic gates is fixed in silicon. The configuration does not change when different software is executed (beyond the changing states, which I hope I’ve addressed, albeit poorly). There are specialized chips that perform one task and do it well; they cannot do an arbitrary other task unless the gates were put in a different configuration. In the simplest form I can think of, you cannot get an OR gate to perform the task of an AND gate without reconfiguration of some sort. ---
**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 4, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/165 "2005-03-04T18:27:06Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Awareness, given what I propose above, would be necessary for drawing inferences, which require symbols of a sort. _What_ is drawing inferences? Brain-states? If inference is a process of some areas of the brain changing the state of electro-chemical activity of other areas of the brain, why isn’t symbol creation and manipulation take place “behind the scenes” like all every other brain process? ---
**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 4, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/166 "2005-03-04T18:42:20Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > _What_ is drawing inferences? Brain-states? If inference is a process of some areas of the brain changing the state of electro-chemical activity of other areas of the brain, why isn’t symbol creation and manipulation take place “behind the scenes” like all every other brain process? Now that is a good question. However, I think it’s overextending ourselves – in the sense that awareness is required for drawing inferences, but drawing inferences is not required for awareness. In a strict logical sense, drawing inferences is applying rules to symbols. (Right?) Symbol creation may very well be taking place “behind the scenes”, as in forming a memory that never reaches awareness. Symbol manipulation, on the other hand, requires the ability to access a symbol _qua_ symbol, which I think requires awareness. Drawing inferences is a complex form of symbol manipulation that I would posit absolutely requires awareness. How this all works? I don’t know. 😃 (Did I use _qua_ correctly? First time I’ve actually had the opportunity!) ---
**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 4, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/167 "2005-03-04T19:17:37Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Yes, there is a cutoff point, as evidenced by the fact that cadavers and rocks are not aware, but other things are. Why? I’m not sure there’s an answer to that, assuming I’m not taking the question the wrong way. How? That’s part of what I’m trying to get at. See, part of my problem is that people seem to be saying, “Well, we gotta draw the line _somewhere_….hmmm…. right about _here_ seems convenient”. So far, the answer to the question “Are rocks aware?” hasn’t been “No”, it’s been “Probably not, but if they are, they’re sure not aware the same way _we_ are.” Granted, that may be the only way to make progress in this discussion, but it does sidestep the questions raised by **Tris** and others, which, in my opinion, were pretty damn good questions. > [@](#): > > I’m not clear on the distinction you’re making. If you can’t have information without a physical basis, then information has a physical basis. You’re right; that was cringingly sloppy wording on my part. I’m saying that information apparently requires a physical _medium_, but information qua information may not be physical. > [@](#): > > Simply this – a configuration of logic gates is fixed in silicon. The configuration does not change when different software is executed (beyond the changing states, which I hope I’ve addressed, albeit poorly). There are specialized chips that perform one task and do it well; they cannot do an arbitrary other task unless the gates were put in a different configuration. In the simplest form I can think of, you cannot get an OR gate to perform the task of an AND gate without reconfiguration of some sort. I _think_ you’re advocating the view that software is physical, through and though. But how is that view supported if I can run three different programs on the same hardware yet there’s no discernable physical change in that hardware? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/168 "2005-03-04T19:17:45Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > 1. “_Awareness would be an evolutionary disadvantage if it were too sluggish in arising_.” Then why does it arise at _all_? Because when it arises in a timely fashion, it is an evolutionary _advantage_. The reason humans are so high in the evolutionary tree is that their capacity for familiarity is so much greater than any other animal’s. They are capable of being aware of so much more. > [@](#): > > There’s a massive amount of coordinated brain activity that goes into forming a processed image; a mental summary of immediate and past pertinent information. Then, after awareness dawns, there’s a massive amount of coordinated brain activity that goes into forming and rearranging memories. Why the “middleman” of awareness? Because the process of blending immediate memory with past memory establishes a continuity of familiarity, allowing you to learn and grow (intellectually), to become familiar with more things, to draw associations among similar and dissimilar things, and so on. Consider what would be the case without ever having in your cognitive brain a representation of something that is familiar to you (our definition of awareness) when you encounter something new. Your brain, in bypassing your cognition, is storing disassociated and unrelated images of events and revelations, and nothing would make sense. You’d be like a cock roach, bouncing off walls and stumbling upon sustenance. As a member of the frail species, homo sapiens, you might as well be dead because something will kill you very soon. > [@](#): > > Who needs awareness for storing short term and long term memories, drawing inferences, developing likes and dislikes, learning, etc., when different portions of the brain are _already_ “talking” to each other, sharing, pooling, trimming, pruning and competing for information? Why aren’t those brain processes we associate with awareness doing their thing “silently”? Well, they are! 😃 That which becomes aware is just another part of your brain. Keep in mind that these pronouns are anthropomorphic. When we say your brain tells you something, we mean that your brain tells your brain something. It is all internal and “silent” outside your consciousness. No one else can hear you think. But inside, a lot is going on. Think of the whole brain process that we’ve discussed in terms of a very big, dark house. Let us say that the brain doing its work is represented by a lighsource moving through the rooms of the house. And let us say that the portion of the brain that you recognize as you (your consciousness) is standing in one of the rooms with two doors on either side of you. What happens is that the light begins moving all throughout the house upon the house sensing an event or having a revelation. You cannot see this light because your room is still dark. You are not aware of it. Suddenly, the light comes through the door and careens past you. Brightness! The room is filled with images and emotions and such and then, bang. The light source has moved on through the other door and is gone. The room is now dark again. The only reason the brightening of the room impresses you at all is that you happen to be in there. And each time you fetch a memory, you are summoning the light source to the room you’re in. But from the perspective of the whole house and the light source, yours is just another room. Now, there is another possibly startling implication from this stage of our deductions — namely that, owing to the closed nature of your consciousness (in the sense of being closed to others), all of our perceptions are subjective. No one else is privvy to your imagery and awareness, and you are privvy to no one else’s. Even your reading is tainting my writing with its own preconceived notions and your brain’s own memories and experiences. A human being (or for that matter any being that processes the memory-awareness-memory chain), therefore, is incapable of objectivity. > [@](#): > > 1. Photons are absorbed and readmitted in different wavelengths by an object. When some of those photons strike the rods and cones in my retina, an enzyme cascade ensues, transducing the energy of the photons into electro-chemical activity. This activity is shunted, altered and regenerated through many portions of my brain, causing changes in the pattern of neural firing and hormonal release. > > Let’s say the object was a blue ball. Photons/Wavelengths aren’t blue. Neither are my rods and cones, and my brain isn’t blue, it’s a squishy gray and white. So… _where is the blue_? Why, it’s in my _awareness_. But how can that be if electro-chemical activity in squishy gray and white neurons completely describes/accounts for awareness? Thank goodness we just deduced subjectivity because we must invoke it now. I don’t mean to go all Matrix on you, but… (you guessed it)… there is no blue. There is only what you have become familiar with through a lifetime of awareness states. None of us can remember intimately what it was like as a child when we learned our colors, but we weren’t born knowning blue from red. The perceptions of different wavelengths of light were fairly meaningless through much of our infancy. But over time, and after much revision of memory as it moved in and back out of the holding place, we came to recognize that this particular quality we’re looking at is somehow different from that other one, and thus… “What’s this, mommy?” you ask bright-eyed, pointing at your coloring book. “That’s a cow,” she responds. “No, not that. What’s like this?” You hold up the crayon you used. “Oh, that’s blue!” You drag your crayon across the table top and beam. “Now the table is blue!” Your mother gasps, horrified. You hold up another crayon. The red one. “Now mommy is THIS kind of blue!” And thus, you begin to become aware of blue, and red, and the rest of it. ---
**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 4, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/169 "2005-03-04T20:29:48Z")
**DS** , my question about a gate changing state was indeed a piddling nitpick. I apologise for it. Perhaps I can make amends . . . > [@other-wise](#): > > I _think_ you’re advocating the view that software is physical, through and though. But how is that view supported if I can run three different programs on the same hardware yet there’s no discernable physical change in that hardware? Software is symbols encoded in a medium, such as a CD or a hard disk or states of gates. The meaning of a symbol is something different than the symbol itself. You know that, so what’s your question? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/170 "2005-03-04T22:19:08Z")
It’s FRiday night, and I am drunk. Apologies if I’m inaccurate. There seems to be a [SOME versus ALL] difficulty going on here. As I explained to **lib** in his prior thread, our senses operate on a **statistical** basis: those few weird quantum events in the hardware of our brains get filtered out. That’s also why any small diferences in our memories are overridden. That also explains evolutionary pressures: after all, evolution **is** statistics. Where’s **erl** with his gin when you need him? ---
**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 4, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/171 "2005-03-04T22:36:16Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > So far, the answer to the question “Are rocks aware?” hasn’t been “No”, it’s been “Probably not, but if they are, they’re sure not aware the same way _we_ are.” Granted, that may be the only way to make progress in this discussion, but it does sidestep the questions raised by **Tris** and others, which, in my opinion, were pretty damn good questions. Ah. Well, I don’t know that I have an issue with the statement “Rocks are aware” if I can be made to understand what is meant by “aware”. _I_ believe that “aware” includes the ability to form memories, where “memory” does not include the consequences of erosion and the like. As I said earlier, it’s important to arrive at some common definitions to make any progress. If there’s some reason that you would claim that rocks _are_ aware, I’d have to ask for clarification as to how you are using the term “aware”. Not so much to disagree, but just to begin to be _able_ to disagree (agree, as it were). > [@](#): > > I’m saying that information apparently requires a physical _medium_, but information qua information may not be physical. Sort of. “Information” is an interpretation assigned to a particular configuration of the physical. Claude Shannon was a genius; if only all phone company employees were so brilliant. (Heck, if only _I_ were so brilliant.) Electronic bits (in the “binary digit” sense) are not bits unless you define the voltage at which something is “on” and “off”. However, one _cannot_ have information without the physical. In my view, this is what **SentientMeat** was getting at by speaking of the “nature” of memory. > [@](#): > > I _think_ you’re advocating the view that software is physical, through and though. But how is that view supported if I can run three different programs on the same hardware yet there’s no discernable physical change in that hardware? > > > [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > > > Software is symbols encoded in a medium, such as a CD or a hard disk or states of gates. The meaning of a symbol is something different than the symbol itself. First off, I need to say – **Hoodoo Ulove** , your objection is only piddling _if_ one does not assume physical continuity. And _that_, only because so much more unravels that there are larger and more pressing issues. I really was stymied when I first read your question. It was a show-stopper. I think I’ve evaded the issue, but not really to my satisfaction. I think you’re right in your response to **other-wise**. I would augment the response with reference to my statements above; the meaning of a symbol is arrived at by applying an interpretation to a physical configuration. Come to think of it, I may be using “information” in a too-strong sense (as the reference to Claude Shannon indicates), as I can see objecting via a chicken-and-egg argument (e.g., information is necessary for an interpretation, but an interpretation is necessary for information). Let me express it this way – a memory is a form of information that an aware being can interpret. A memory still obtains information status if it provides some impetus for change (e.g., a simple sensor/motor connection). One does _not_ have to be aware of a memory for it to have potential information content. Did I include a contradiction in there somewhere? I’m not sure I worked that one out properly, nor that I expressed it well. Perhaps I should’ve left things as **Hoodoo Ulove** put them. ---
**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, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/172 "2005-03-05T00:03:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Because the process of blending immediate memory with past memory establishes a continuity of familiarity, allowing you to learn and grow (intellectually), to become familiar with more things, to draw associations among similar and dissimilar things, and so on. 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. > [@](#): > > Consider what would be the case without ever having in your cognitive brain a representation of something that is familiar to you (our definition of awareness) when you encounter something new. Your brain, in bypassing your cognition, is storing disassociated and unrelated images of events and revelations, and nothing would make sense. You’d be like a cock roach, bouncing off walls and stumbling upon sustenance. As a member of the frail species, homo sapiens, you might as well be dead because something will kill you very soon. 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. > [@](#): > > But inside, a lot is going on. Think of the whole brain process that we’ve discussed in terms of a very big, dark house. Let us say that the brain doing its work is represented by a lighsource moving through the rooms of the house. And let us say that the portion of the brain that you recognize as you (your consciousness) is standing in one of the rooms with two doors on either side of you. What happens is that the light begins moving all throughout the house upon the house sensing an event or having a revelation. You cannot see this light because your room is still dark. You are not aware of it. Suddenly, the light comes through the door and careens past you. Brightness! The room is filled with images and emotions and such and then, bang. The light source has moved on through the other door and is gone. The room is now dark again. The only reason the brightening of the room impresses you at all is that you happen to be in there. And each time you fetch a memory, you are summoning the light source to the room you’re in. But from the perspective of the whole house and the light source, yours is just another room. 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. > [@](#): > > \ I don’t mean to go all Matrix on you, but… (you guessed it)… there is no blue. There is only what you have become familiar with through a lifetime of awareness states. None of us can remember intimately what it was like as a child when we learned our colors, but we weren’t born knowning blue from red. The perceptions of different wavelengths of light were fairly meaningless through much of our infancy. But over time, and after much revision of memory as it moved in and back out of the holding place, we came to recognize that this particular quality we’re looking at is somehow different from that other one, and thus… 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. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/173 "2005-03-05T04:24:09Z")
Some questions: 1. What about memories of abstract concepts? 2. What about memories of imaginary objects? 3. What about memories that have been changed? I learned something very interesting in Abstract Algebra - if two maps are isomorphic to one another, and map One has an object called A and map Two has an object called B that corresponds to A, then as far as we’re concerned, A = B. (Or, in layman’s terms, we call it “soccer”, they call it “football”, but we’re actually talking about the same thing.) So, in answer to the awareness issue: 1. It is an entirely physical, self-perpetuating progress (fueled by, I dunno, life, I guess) 2. It is partially metaphysical, stemming from the “soul” (whatever the heck that is) 3. It is entirely metaphysical, the world as we know it being an illusion (the _Matrix_ explanation) 4. Zoop Bwing Liliac. (Makes as much sense as anything else.) ---
**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, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/174 "2005-03-05T04:26:23Z")
**Hoodo Ulove** , I think my answers to **DS** will cover the symbol/software issue you raised. If not, please let me know and I’ll try and address your concerns directly. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Ah. Well, I don’t know that I have an issue with the statement “Rocks are aware” if I can be made to understand what is meant by “aware”. _I_ believe that “aware” includes the ability to form memories, where “memory” does not include the consequences of erosion and the like. As I said earlier, it’s important to arrive at some common definitions to make any progress. If there’s some reason that you would claim that rocks _are_ aware, I’d have to ask for clarification as to how you are using the term “aware”. Not so much to disagree, but just to begin to be _able_ to disagree (agree, as it were). Well, I’ve been exchanging some very dense posts with **Lib** and I _still_ don’t understand what is meant by “aware”. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe “aware” is one of those problematic words like “self”, “time” or “exist”. 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. But I also can’t help thinking we may be assigning our cutoff points a bit hastily. > [@](#): > > \ However, one _cannot_ have information without the physical. I’ve already agreed that one cannot have information without the physical. It’s necessity to explain information is not in question; just it’s _sufficiency_. > [@](#): > > First off, I need to say – **Hoodoo Ulove** , your objection is only piddling _if_ one does not assume physical continuity. And _that_, only because so much more unravels that there are larger and more pressing issues. I really was stymied when I first read your question. It was a show-stopper. I think I’ve evaded the issue, but not really to my satisfaction. > > I think you’re right in your response to **other-wise**. I would augment the response with reference to my statements above; the meaning of a symbol is arrived at by applying an interpretation to a physical configuration. > > Come to think of it, I may be using “information” in a too-strong sense (as the reference to Claude Shannon indicates), as I can see objecting via a chicken-and-egg argument (e.g., information is necessary for an interpretation, but an interpretation is necessary for information). Let me express it this way – a memory is a form of information that an aware being can interpret. A memory still obtains information status if it provides some impetus for change (e.g., a simple sensor/motor connection). One does _not_ have to be aware of a memory for it to have potential information content. Yep. Bits aren’t bits unless you define them as such, and information is necessary for an interpretation, but an interpretation is necessary for information. These are my concerns exactly. I agree that one does not have to be aware of a memory for it to have potential information content, but then, one does not have to be aware of a symbol for it to have potential information content. Without interpretation, symbols _aren’t_ symbols, and memories _aren’t_ memories. Now all we have to do is figure out what an “aware being” and an “interpretation” is and we’ll be all set. 🙂 ---
**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, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/175 "2005-03-05T06:25:01Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Now all we have to do is figure out what an “aware being” and an “interpretation” is and we’ll be all set. 🙂 I somewhat regret introducing the term “interpretation”; it was premature, although it seemed necessary to convey what I wanted. At any rate, I believe that the only one with any reservations regarding whether “memory” _necessarily_ has a physical basis (or nature, if that’s preferred) is **Liberal** (I’d give you a post number, but they’re not displayed in preview; it’s marked 11:22AM). I’d like to wait for him to weigh in before I tackle any more regarding awareness, much less interpretation. At any rate, I’d appreciate it if you’d go back to my list of criteria for awareness (paricularly as it relates to the thermostat-on-steroids, with some form of “memory” and **SentientMeat** ’s nuclear reactor) and/or my example of input/output (the fire/recoil scenario) and see if you have any more to say about them. ---
**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, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/176 "2005-03-05T06:33:00Z")
Awareness, as a philosophical concept is nebulous to me. It gets woven as it is spun, and then I cannot tell where it stops being wool, and starts being yarn, or even cloth. So, I am going to back into a side street, and discuss awareness from a human development point of view. There, I have some experience, and some expertise. Take the example of child and mother and the awareness of colors, and specifically the nomenclature of color. The example also includes awareness of the difference between noun, and adjective, and object and characteristic. The awareness of the child already encompasses Mother as an information source, on objects not present. This kid is way past the beginning of awareness. 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. See? Now, faces matter to babies, from birth. At the very moment of birth, normal infants react to facial expression, and facial structure. (One of those borderline abusive science guys actually showed infants deformed face photos and recorded their distress.) Detecting gaze direction is a very early skill in most infants. (Hey, mom, look at me!) It is also a very subtle thing to detect, although most mammals are good at it from very early. All these things are early developments in human awareness. Some are not, at first closely associated with experiential memory, but most are rapidly modified by experience. Stop looking at a baby, and it will soon stop looking for an eye gaze. It will soon stop looking outward at all. It might well soon die. It has no elements to manipulate to establish self, and other. It just perceives its environment, and has no effect on it. I might be riding this metaphor too far, but it seems relevant to me, since awareness is demonstrated by this example to be both a state, and a process. It seems to me that might well be part of the difficulty in dissecting it. I have to think about this all some more. ## Tris “” is not a recognized response. ~ Unknown programmer ~ ---
**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, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/177 "2005-03-05T06:47:58Z")
As a follow-on to my last post, I feel the need to explain why I regret introducing the term “interpretation”. To do so, I want to mention “booting” a computer. The term is short for “boot-strapping”, which is in turn short for “picking one up by one’s own boot-straps”. While impossible in real life, with a computer it refers to incrementally getting a system up and running by going through a sequence of stages in which just enough information is loaded to begin the next stage. At first, all we have is a physical configuration. Power is applied and we go from there. I believe this is an accurate metaphor for the evolutionary trajectory of consciousness, but don’t want that to become a topic of debate. Instead, I just refer to it to illustrate why I think it is important to establish the basis of memory, then the minimal components of awareness, then a better definition of interpretation, and so on. Oh, and this time I opened another tab for my reply; **Liberal** ’s post is [#156](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5910325&postcount=156) , while my updated list of criteria is in [post #126](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5907665&postcount=126) and the fire/recoil example is in [post #137](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5909188&postcount=137). ---
**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, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/178 "2005-03-05T06:57:10Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > Some questions: > > 1. What about memories of abstract concepts? > 2. What about memories of imaginary objects? > 3. What about memories that have been changed? I would posit that Lakoff (mentioned in an earlier post with a link to his book regarding the source of mathematical constructs of the mind) is on the right track as regards abstract concepts. I would further posit that there is no such thing as memories of imaginary objects, depending on how one defines imaginary. I’m not sure how to address changed memories, as I’m not sure what to respond _to_ without more information. > [@](#): > > I learned something very interesting in Abstract Algebra - if two maps are isomorphic to one another, and map One has an object called A and map Two has an object called B that corresponds to A, then as far as we’re concerned, A = B. (Or, in layman’s terms, we call it “soccer”, they call it “football”, but we’re actually talking about the same thing.) Yes, isomorphism is a nifty thing, removing spatio-temporal constraints as it does. I wonder if we’ll find a use for it somewhere in this thread… ---
**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, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/179 "2005-03-05T07:10:40Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Awareness, as a philosophical concept is nebulous to me. It gets woven as it is spun, and then I cannot tell where it stops being wool, and starts being yarn, or even cloth. > \ > I have to think about this all some more. 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? ---
**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, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584/180 "2005-03-05T07:41:43Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > You’re right; that was cringingly sloppy wording on my part. I’m saying that information apparently requires a physical _medium_, but information qua information may not be physical. > > I _think_ you’re advocating the view that software is physical, through and though. But how is that view supported if I can run three different programs on the same hardware yet there’s no discernable physical change in that hardware? I’m coming real late, but as a hardware designer and programmer both, let me correct some misconceptions. 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. When you design, there are two types of logic - combinational, with no state, and sequential, which records a state. Sequential elements include RAM and flip-flops. But, since signals flow through wires at the speed of light, there is to a certain extent a state in the wires while the signal changes. In fact, one element of testing hardware involves checking to see if a signal arrives too late at the next memory element. This can be used to store information - the first logic lab I ever did was using an acoustical delay line to implement a memory. This was a big hunk of wire, with some electronics that converted digital signals to sound pulses. This went around, and if you set things up right, you could read from the delay line just like from a memory. All that software does, really, is to issue control signals to the hardware to direct inputs to different gates and memories. As mentioned, you can implement software in FPGAs, or you can synthesize it into hardware, or you can implement microcode, where the software goes into a ROM that controls really basic operations. But software and hardware are basically indistinguishable, and in many projects the first step is to figure out what part of the implementation goes where. Now, to our friend the thermometer. This has one state - where the mercury is at the moment. If it is at 40 degrees, you have no way of knowing whether it got there from 30 or from 50. Now, our barometer has two states - a metal pointer you can set to where the pressure was, and the current pressure. Then you can tell where it was at one point, but you don’t know that the needle didn’t wander all over the place. 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… More next post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-memory-is-a-physical-thing/292584.md?page=10)