Nor does it demonstrate that thoughts are physical.
Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't
I would be worried if it did, given it's an example you
provided to support your
claim that information (which you claim thoughts are) isn't
When you provide examples to support your position, the fact that they don't demonstrate the opposite position is really a bare minimum to hope for. But they do need to demonstrate the position they're being given as a demonstration for.
But the experiment does not give the same results.
if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.
You missed the "as stated
" qualifier. There are two ways of seeing your experiment: taking it literally as you described it (audio recorder included), and extending it to include any measuring device. I addressed both aspects in my reply; the two first paragraphs looked at the generalised experiment with any measuring device, and the last paragraph, that referred to "your example as stated
" was a side-note about the former.
If you point a video camer at a person doing sign language you will get a video of a person doing sign language not the persons thoughts.
Right, because a video camera couldn't pick up a person's thoughts even if they were
physical, just like an audio recorder cannot pick up a person's sign language. So the example with a video camera is like the example with an audio recorder: it would give the same result whether or not thoughts were physical.
For your example to demonstrate that thoughts are not physical one needs an instrument that would be expected to give results if thoughts were physical; that way when it doesn't give results, that's evidence that thoughts aren't physical.
I'm curious if you actually disagree with the two following sentences:
"If something is not physical, then it's invisible not just to this or that physical measuring device, but it's invisible to all
physical measuring devices".
"Something being physical or not doesn't depend on our level of technology".
I guess your creativity is more powerful than my version of the truth.
I don't understand what you are referring to with "my creativity", what creativity was involved in searching Google, or posting a PubMed abstract?
Or are you saying the authors of the linked paper made up their claims?
I am also rather confused about your second post, in which you say a lot about the "hypocrisy" of my position but I don't know where you get your ideas of what my position is
You claim you allege atheism (there is no God) because you can detect no physics to God. We argue that God is life, God is a spirit (mental) but has no physics.
Where do I allege this? I don't recall doing so in this discussion, in fact I can hardly recall ever doing so on this board. Closest thing might be a conversation years ago with Tirian on the subject, where I don't think I said what you describe.
Yet you claim to believe in information (with no detectible physics).
And where do I claim that
? Not only am I pretty sure I don't claim that anywhere in this discussion, I'm not even sure it's true; it depends on what we mean by "information", and more specifically what you
mean by "information". I'm not sure at all I believe in the entity you describe as "information" (as opposed to colloquial meanings, or the scientific use of the word that you say is "code" not "information").
When I ask you for the physics of information you find none, give no evidence of any but, nevertheless accept (vy faith?) that information does exist.
That is not quite how those exchanges went, is it. When you ask me for the physics of information, I provide examples of things involving physics and the entities described as "information" by the physicists in question, and you reply they aren't information. Which is fair enough, but it highlights the fact that we disagree on what "information" is
(also, note that those responses about distinguishing "code" from "information" boil down to "that's not information because it has physics, and information has no physics"; i.e. it involves assuming your conclusion, which means those challenges aren't technically arguments for your position, but restatements of it).