> Romansh: Are we agreed that the magnetic response of haem molecules is in some way a reflection of the local neuronal activity in the brain? Assuming it is, it does not diminish the fact we can get information out of a very crude (and in your opinion over hyped) proxy for that neuronal activity. Imagine the day when we can get better resolution on the neuronal activity.-Your statement is fine in that it recognizes the fMRI studies are a baby step in the direction of understanding brain activity. Your first presentation of this was way too grandiose. Just as the EEG is a remote representation. 100 billion neurons with quadrillions of synapses and synapse adaptations is overwhelming complexity to understand at today's level of research ability. Will we eventually get there? I'll give a weak probability. We will need computers just as complex to do simulations. Perhaps Matt will get us there ;>)).-See my entry of April 3rd, 22:33


> > Romansh: I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.
> 
> Thank you for recognizing the truth behind these studies of brain function, several times removed from electrochemical reality. So it proves what? We can only exercise our mental choices and therefore free will though these electrochemical reactions. And you would propose that these mechanisms somehow control our choices? Are you paranoid or contentious? Please note my very recent (yesterday) posts about brain complexity, all arranged by Darwinian chance.
Firstly in the real world I personally I don't believe in proof. 
Perhaps we have corroboarting evidence that is is sufficiently strong that convinces us of a particular world view.-Lets take a step back; first I said:
>> in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.
You said:
> It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. 
And now we are agreeing it does show the degree of oxygenation via the magnetic response of haem molecules in an oscillating magnetic field? Perhaps you would like to retract:
> I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. -Are we agreed that the magnetic response of haem molecules is in some way a reflection of the local neuronal activity in the brain? Assuming it is, it does not diminish the fact we can get information out of a very crude (and in your opinion over hyped) proxy for that neuronal activity. Imagine the day when we can get better resolution on the neuronal activity.


> Romansh: I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.-Thank you for recognizing the truth behind these studies of brain function, several times removed from electrochemical reality. So it proves what? We can only exercise our mental choices and therefore free will though these electrochemical reactions. And you would propose that these mechanisms somehow control our choices? Are you paranoid or contentious? Please note my very recent (yesterday) posts about brain complexity, all arranged by Darwinian chance.


> > Romansh: Over hyped junk? possibly.
> > But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.
> > 
> > That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.
> 
> I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. In a direct sense what you may mean in the level of oxygen demand by a region of the brain.-Does it use the doppler effect to show movement? I don't think so.
What it does is measure the change in the magnetic response in the haem molecules when the central iron atom is oxygented or not. -My guess is the frequency of the magnetic waves is tuned to hydrogen atoms around the porphyrin structure in haem molecule.-I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.


> Romansh: Over hyped junk? possibly.
> But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.
> 
> That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.-I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. In a direct sense what you may mean in the level of oxygen demand by a region of the brain.

Romansh: So if we could scan my brain whilst I am looking at something and somehow read what I was seeing then this would be indicative that information is indeed physical and not immaterial. Unless MRIs can now scan the immaterial?
> > 
> > Youtube
> > 
> > and something similar
> 
> I view the two links as over-hyped junk. Remember fMRI measures blood flow to brain areas, nothing more. On the other hand the dream or thought is carried by ions over neural networks, with modifiable synapses, many degrees of separation from what is measured when looking at blood flow. They are measuring the energy transport required, nothing more. Just because there is energy required to create thought, does not mean that the thought itself has energy. Interpretive meaning does not have energy.-Over hyped junk? possibly.
But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.-That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.

Romansh: So if we could scan my brain whilst I am looking at something and somehow read what I was seeing then this would be indicative that information is indeed physical and not immaterial. Unless MRIs can now scan the immaterial?
> 
> Youtube
> 
> and something similar-I view the two links as over-hyped junk. Remember fMRI measures blood flow to brain areas, nothing more. On the other hand the dream or thought is carried by ions over neural networks, with modifiable synapses, many degrees of separation from what is measured when looking at blood flow. They are measuring the energy transport required, nothing more. Just because there is energy required to create thought, does not mean that the thought itself has energy. Interpretive meaning does not have energy.


> > David: Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.
> 
> Romansh: And yet we cannot separate the physical and information. 
> 
> Our communication is physical, ... the transmission, the medium and reception.-Granted, but I'll repeat again, there is no energy in the information. It can sit in a book, on a disc or on film, but its reception and interpretation can then occur years later. No energy, no entropy. Etherial substance.

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David
> > 
> > 
> > Tony: And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.
> 
> Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.-And yet we cannot separate the physical and information. -Our communication is physical, ... the transmission, the medium and reception.

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David
> 
> 
> Tony: And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.-Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.

"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? 
> 
> Romansh I don't know whether information is being conserved here or not, but certainly new (different) information is being created.
> 
> 0111001001100001011011100110010
> 0011011110110110101101110011001
> 0101110011011100110010000001100
> 0110110111101101110011101000110
> 0001011010010110111001110011001
> 0000001101001011011100110011001
> 1011110111001001101101011000010
> 1110100011010010110111101101110
> 
> When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David-Thre is no energy in the 1's and 0's. Yes, information is presented. The material form is the 1's and 0's, but the information has no energy! You cannot show me that it does.

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David-
And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.

"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? -I don't know whether information is being conserved here or not, but certainly new (different) information is being created.
 
0111001001100001011011100110010
0011011110110110101101110011001
0101110011011100110010000001100
0110110111101101110011101000110
0001011010010110111001110011001
0000001101001011011100110011001
1011110111001001101101011000010
1110100011010010110111101101110-When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David


> >Romansh: What if thought and substance are one?
> 
> David: How many calories are in that sentence you just thought up? Expressed ideas have no inherent energy, but they are created by energy. The DNA code is information, not energy, but the coding process is expressed by energy using molecules and ions.- Information is not material, has no substance:-http://www.mercatornet.com/connecting/view/13830#-"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? Does it matter whether the shredded document is a copy of an un-shredded document and can be replaced?• Likewise, when a digital picture is taken, is digital information being created or merely captured?• The information on a DVD can be measured in bits. Does the amount of information differ if the DVD contains the movie Braveheart or a collection of randomly generated digital noise?• When a human dies, is experiential information lost? If so, can birth and experience create information?• If you are shown a document written in Japanese, does the document contain information whether or not you know Japanese? What if, instead, the document is written in an alien language unknowable to man?The purpose of such questions is to help us see that information is real even though it is immaterial. One consequence of information being immaterial is that it is not measured in any way commensurate with material nature."

Romansh: I would say there is energy in our brains and the way various ions etc are arranged. So you make an assumption of substance dualism and then say Wow! thoughts have no energy ... So things must be emergent.
> 
> 
> What if thought and substance are one?-How many calories are in that sentence you just thought up? Expressed ideas have no inherent energy, but they are created by energy. The DNA code is information, not energy, but the coding process is expressed by energy using molecules and ions. -> 
> Romansh: That anyone thinks that they have any inkling of god and things transcedent is positively surreal to me.-And to me.

I've pointed out that the brain uses energy, and lots of it to funtion. But the thought I am having as I write this is a result of that energy, but the thought itself contains no energy, since it is immaterial. This is the emergent issue at hand. -I'm not sure about this. 
I would say there is energy in our brains and the way various ions etc are arranged. So you make an assumption of substance dualism and then say Wow! thoughts have no energy ... So things must be emergent.-
What if thought and substance are one?->> I can only go so far in my analysis of God's activities. I try very carefully not to fall into religion's way of creating an all-everything God. I think it is wishful thinking. -That anyone thinks that they have any inkling of god and things transcedent is positively surreal to me.


> Romansh: Here we go off topic ... as a substance dualist you will have to show me with some degree corroborating evidence that either a) a thought is anything but an arrangement of compounds ions etc in your brain or b) that the thought is indeed immaterial and somehow your brain can write to the thought and vice versa without using energy.-I've pointed out that the brain uses energy, and lots of it to funtion. But the thought I am having as I write this is a result of that energy, but the thought itself contains no energy, since it is immaterial. This is the emergent issue at hand. This is the problem in NDE research. Eben Alexander's NDE somehow occurred with seven days of no cerebral function.


> Romansh:Does the designer have unexpected emergent events?
> 
> So I suppose I should add 4) God did it in a difficult to predict way.-I can only go so far in my analysis of God's activities. I try very carefully not to fall into religion's way of creating an all-everything God. I think it is wishful thinking. Adler went so far as the estimate God's interest in an individual's prayer as about 50/50. I'm not sure God knows every event in the future, so unexpected emergent events or unindtended consequences are very possible.

Here I dsagree. My thought emerges, but it is immaterial and I have to use symbolic letters to make words to express that thought to you. The written words have material substance, but the thoughts transmitted do not. Yes there is energy activity in your brain and mine to accomplish this transmission, but the thoughts I send and you receive do not have an energy component as an intrinsic portion of the thought. First law? No.-Here we go off topic ... as a substance dualist you will have to show me with some degree corroborating evidence that either a) a thought is anything but an arrangement of compounds ions etc in your brain or b) that the thought is indeed immaterial and somehow your brain can write to the thought and vice versa without using energy.