Posted 27 June 2017 - 11:55 PM
Mike Summers, on 27 Jun 2017 - 4:45 PM,
the tape would be silent from end to end but it does not follow that sign language isn't physical: one's immediate response would be "do it again using a video camera instead of an audio recorder".
What? Sign language is physical.
And you put the microphome up to your head and so you would have to point the camera at your head because that's where information resides.
That's what I'm saying. Sign language cannot be picked up by an audio recorder but it is physical all the same, and it can be picked up by a different measuring tool. Thus, "it cannot be picked up by an audio recorder/one specific tool" isn't sufficient proof that something isn't physical. You have to not be able to pick it up with any conceivable tool.
Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and you will not recoord information either way. Braile is often used as code. It's "touch" code. But it's still code.
Code and information are to different things. My experiment proved that information has no physics thatrt we know of!
Cameras cannot see through the skull, or resolve single cells, so pointing it at the head is pointless if you want to make sure there is no information to be detected in the brain.
But there are ways of doing that.
If thoughts were physical, I'm pretty sure most people agree they would occur in the brain; the general consensus seems to be that they'd consist of patterns of neurons, their interconnections and their activation behaviors in the brain. Even most neurologists who believe thoughts aren't physical would agree I think that if they were physical, that is what they would physically be. Obviously an audio recording device or video camera cannot measure the behavior of neurons inside the brain; they can't even detect through the skull. The thing is, we don't currently have tools that allow to detect the exact patterns of neuron connections and behavior in a human brain. The best we have are tools to measure the activities of handful of neurons in cases where we can put electrodes in the brain, and measuring blood flow and electrical activity in general regions of the brain when we can't. And those tools already allow scientists to measure plenty of aspects of thought-like entities.
In light of this, would you argue that it is impossible in principle to measure the activities of all neurons in a human brain, or would you argue that it is possible in principle, if maybe not in practice right now, and if such a tool were applied to my brain while I was reading the text to myself it would not pick up on those thought words like the recorder picked up on the spoken ones? Or would you maybe argue that the tool would pick up on the text I am thinking, but that the brain activity it picked up and successfully interpreted as said text being thought to oneself wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves?
We have taken a brain out of a skull and can use an electron microscope to look at synaptic configurations but that's code and no one knows what information the code is supposed to represent! Somewhere amomng all those connections is supposed to be all the iformation that made up the person. Yet we can't tell so much as a persons name by looking at their brain.
Using an electron microscope on a brain is like using it on a violin and trying to deduce what's the last piece of music it played. Again, not the tool for the job. There are tools that are able to look at the brain's activity as a person is conscious and doing mental tasks involving thoughts and information. They're very imperfect but they beat an electron microscope, which cannot do that.
Sound is a mental function we create music from atmospheric presure diffentials.
We were looking for the physics of informmation and you have demonstratred that our mental state has to be engaged to allow us to be concious of information. You still have not given any physics to information.
The things we seem to be able to do with such imperfect measuring tools so far includes allowing people to control computer interfaces, brain-to-brain communication of information, detecting features of imagined speech including syllable rhythm or vowel/consonant discrimination...
It's not the tool is imperfect for what it is designed to do. It's just that it has a mission that it can't achieve.
I'll ask my questions again. Which of these three sentences do you agree with, if any:
1) It is impossible in principle to measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain
2) If we had a tool that could measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain, and we used to to measure my brain activity as I read a text to myself, it would be impossible to deduce the text from the measurements.
3) If we had such a tool then it might be possible to deduce the text from the measurements, but the measurements nevertheless aren't measurements of the actual thoughts I had.
We don't! And we do. We are aware of what we are thinkikng. We just don't find any physics to it! Perhaps you could "create" a tool to do it! LOL