Information theory?

[Sunstone]

Do we need a definition of "emotion" here?

 

[Ryan2065]

I'm not aware that I jumped on you.

Not that I think it's an entirely accurate set of symptoms (you've never loved someone you didn't trust? Would you love your mother if she had a brain tumor, or rabies, or alsheimers? Would you trust her then?

So was this to NetDoc or to me? Seeing as all I was doing was interpreting NetDoc's "definition" of love.

 

[JerryL]

So was this to NetDoc or to me? Seeing as all I was doing was interpreting NetDoc's "definition" of love.

I don't consider the presented symptom (you presented it, asserting that it's NetDoc's) is accurate in describe what you assert he believes is "love".

I certainly did respond; my comment was that I don't believe "jumped" is an accurate verb here. I apologize if I gave the impression that I did.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, thoughts are material; composed of matter-energy located in vriousparts of your brain.

Dude, change your color when you respond to me..
Ok, let me see If I can understand what you are talking about by asking questions.
So everything is matter to you right? If this is true, we should be able to configure thoughts by assembling atoms in a lab (in theory). Should we not?
And what we see, is matter. That matter is seen by your eyes and is interpreted by your brain, correct?
What I am trying to say is that there is a dead space (space between what you see and the matter in your brain) that is not accounted for. So in this case matter DID NOT physically trigger or move the matter in your brain. Rather the interpretation (Information) of your brain is what triggered the matter in your brain and called upon a thought stored in your brain. You with me now?

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

So everything is matter to you right?

Yes, all "things" are composed of matter-energy. Abstracts in a mind are also composed, to exist in the mind; but abstracts in abstract are not.

"Love" is not a thing, but my feeling of love is. The concept of causality is not a thing, but the concept in my brain is.

If this is true, we should be able to configure thoughts by assembling atoms in a lab (in theory). Should we not?

Assembling matter-energy, yes.

And what we see, is matter. That matter is seen by your eyes and is interpreted by your brain, correct?

The light striking the photoreceptors in your eyes creates an electrical charge, which travels down the optical nerve and enters your brain's neural network, yes.

What I am trying to say is that there is a dead space (space between what you see and the matter in your brain) that is not accounted for. So in this case matter DID NOT physically trigger or move the matter in your brain. Rather the interpretation (Information) of your brain is what triggered the matter in your brain and called upon a thought stored in your brain. You with me now?

Interpretation is a physical act.

When I type on a keyboard, the closing of the circuit under the key causes an electrical signial to run down the KB cable and into the motherboard. It runs through the southbridge controller, and into the processor where it is interpreted into a keystroke.

My keystrokes may make the computer put out sound, or shut off, or turn on, or just align little magnetic bits on the hard-drive. Like your brain, the PC has taken the same basic raw input and contexutally interpreted it into action.

The actual physical function of a PC is different than your brain... different materials and methods of moving information, and a centralized and physcially non-adaptive structure; but the basic function of internalizing input is the same.

That "dead space" is somtehing you are imagining out of an ignorance of how signal processing and thought work.

 

[Quiddity]

Assembling matter-energy, yes.

Really? So this must mean that cavaties in my brain can fill up with thoughts. Can we measure this? This is new to me.

The light striking the photoreceptors in your eyes creates an electrical charge, which travels down the optical nerve and enters your brain's neural network, yes.

I thought light was not matter? I want my money back..:149: Professor told me it wasn't.

Interpretation is a physical act.

Not fully convinced as of yet.

When I type on a keyboard, the closing of the circuit under the key causes an electrical signial to run down the KB cable and into the motherboard. It runs through the southbridge controller, and into the processor where it is interpreted into a keystroke.

My keystrokes may make the computer put out sound, or shut off, or turn on, or just align little magnetic bits on the hard-drive. Like your brain, the PC has taken the same basic raw input and contexutally interpreted it into action.

The actual physical function of a PC is different than your brain... different materials and methods of moving information, and a centralized and physcially non-adaptive structure; but the basic function of internalizing input is the same.

It's as close of a comparison you can come up with but they certainly differ and it didn't move an inch in me captivating as you see it.

That "dead space" is somtehing you are imagining out of an ignorance of how signal processing and thought work.

It was an honest observation...

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Really? So this must mean that cavaties in my brain can fill up with thoughts. Can we measure this? This is new to me.

I have no idea where you get this thought, nor am I entirelly clear what you mean.

What cavaties are you thinking about, and how does something "fill with thoughts"?

I thought light was not matter? I want my money back..:149: Professor told me it wasn't.

Light is not in matter form. Did I say otherwise?

It's as close of a comparison you can come up with but they certainly differ and it didn't move an inch in me captivating as you see it.

Your response is rhetorical. I cannot cause you to begin to reason.

It was an honest observation...

I did not call it dishonest, just ignorant.

 

[Quiddity]

I have no idea where you get this thought, nor am I entirelly clear what you mean.

What cavaties are you thinking about, and how does something "fill with thoughts"?

I said it in such a fashion because matter takes up space. That's where the "fill with thoughts" came from. We should be able to measure this, no?

Light is not in matter form. Did I say otherwise?

No you didn't. But you did say:

Interpretation is a physical act.

If light is part of the interpretation process and it's not matter. How can it be a "physical act"?

Your response is rhetorical. I cannot cause you to begin to reason.

No you can't but what you can do is clarify things in laymen terms. Or is using fancy words trigger some happy feelings?

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

I said it in such a fashion because matter takes up space. That's where the "fill with thoughts" came from. We should be able to measure this, no?

Perhaps with star-trek technology.

If light is part of the interpretation process and it's not matter. How can it be a "physical act"?

Energy is physical.

No you can't but what you can do is clarify things in laymen terms. Or is using fancy words trigger some happy feelings?

If you have trouble understanding something I've said, you are welcome to ask for clarification. It's more likely I'm choosing my words for their precision than fancyness.

 

[Quiddity]

Energy is physical.

I thought you said light was not matter? :help:

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

I thought you said light was not matter? :help:

I did. Light is not matter (particle-wave issues notwithstanding). Light is energy. Energy is physical.

 

[Quiddity]

I did. Light is not matter (particle-wave issues notwithstanding). Light is energy. Energy is physical.

Gotcha...:bounce

~Victor