Information, Thought, & Physical Existance

Information, Thought, & Physical ExistanceI was reading the book Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife. The book is an explanation of information theory, and how it ties all the branches of science. Anyway, in the book, Seife tells how information must exist somehow as something physical (you can't just have information with no matter, energy, etc.).So, just a little bit ago, another member and I were arguing whether or not thoughts required physical media to exist. I'd say that according to this book, a thought (a form of information) cannot simply exist on its own without anything physical--without something of substance.Imagine I'm dead (I know, sad isn't it?), but just imagine. If I die, all my thoughts that I haven't shared with anyone die with me. Now, perhaps there is a way to retrieve those thoughts, but perhaps there isn't. If my brain deteriorates (which it will do after dying), and I no longer exist, then those thoughts can never be found. I mean, those thoughts don't exist outside of my brain, outside of a physical substance.I would like someone else (with more knowledge on information) to clarify this one for me, 'cause I find it a very interesting idea to study.J0NEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : Replaced Phat's name with "another member" ;-)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I've never read this book, so im no expert on what type of educational message that the author wishes to convey. It does seem a bit hypothetical, though! Information?Call me simple minded, but I find the idea that humans can even begin to dare hypothesize about not only our universe as we dimly comprehend it, but an infinite number of other ones as simply inconceivable! What are these authors trying to teach us, anyway? Are you suggesting that information requires a physical vessel to be transmitted? what about a tape recorder? I would argue that information needs to be either words or numbers or symbols! Edited by Phat, : correction

Why did you put it in Education and Creation/Evolution? shame...

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it did it make a sound?
By the same token, if you had a thought when alive, what makes us think that the thought no longer exists when you die? Can we break the components of a thought down to strict bio-electrical processes of brain neurons??

Can we break walking down to the strict actions of the legs moving?

If subject#A is the person being studied, and if we are studying the thought processes of subject#A--than no.
1) What were the reason(s) for the walk? The primary motivation may have been to go visit someone. The secondary motivation may have been to drop a letter off at the mailbox. The third motivation may have been exercise.All of those thoughts factor in to the impulses that got the legs to move in the first place.Reminds me of the Star Trek episode of Spocks Brain. Someone had stolen Spocks Brain and yet Dr.McCoy was able to keep Spocks body alive by a device that stimulated his neural endings.
starfleetlibrary.com - This website is for sale! - starfleetlibrary starfleet library Resources and Information.

I know that I blew it by starting this topic here, Jon. Lets keep it going, though... (sorry) So basically, your argument is that anything that qualifies as a thought must have been thought originally by a human (or other animal) and that these thoughts required a living animal in order to remain intact?And that if the animal or person dies, all that they thought about ceases to exist at that moment? If I wrote a book and/or recorded my thoughts and ideas (or even music) then my thoughts would be preserved long after my physical body had died----right?Edited by Phat, : add by edit

Aye aye. However, then you've transfered your thoughts to another physical medium. The book points out that information is physical. That's about all I know though.Now, I see you have a belief that people don't actually "cease to exist" when they die, but I don't see how that could be. If information is physical, then there needs to be a physical medium to carry their information, but there isn't.Anyway, like I said, that's all I know. I was hoping for someone with a better understand of Information Theory to come around and help me understand it a little better.J0N

Jon Since without a brain thoughts are not possible then I would say that you have won the arguement.

lets define what you mean by physical medium. Is DNA a physical medium?If God created the universe and "spoke it" into existance as a Creator, would He (or she) by definition require a physical medium to accomplish this? Maybe that explains Jesus! Not to drift too far into creationism!

Ah, yes, we wouldn't want to do that now... not in this forum .J0N

Only if you think you have been preserved in a photograph taken of you. The "thoughts" that you can record in a book or other form are not much more of the actual thoughts that make up the conscious you than the photograph is your body.Perhaps with a better recording medium it will be possible to talk about your "thoughts", in a more meaningful sense, being preserved.A better term here might be "ideas" -- your ideas have been preserved and at the very, very most a tiny bit of the thoughts behind them.

Isn't this simply a definitional issue. If we define sound as compression waves within a specific range of frequencies then there is no doubt that a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. If you only define things which are heard rather than those that could be heard as sound then obviously you have a much more subjective concept which leads to the sort of philosophical navel gazing with which this question is so often associated.TTFN,WK

On the other hand though, if there isn't an observer to observe or in some way measure the compression waves, do the compression waves even exist?I think this ties into the whole issue of an observer in QM and what role consciousness plays in the whole thing.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.