If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

And in this context, what do you mean by “choose”?

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

That the mind is non physical but contained in a sensing physical body.

KJW said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

And in this context, what do you mean by “choose”?

deciding one in favor of the other

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

He means you can talk but if you put your hand up his skirt he’ll mind……….

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

If you had to choose between a non physical mind and a physical mind, which would you choose?

What do you mean by non-physical?

What do you mean by physical?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What do you mean by non-physical?

That the mind is non physical but contained in a sensing physical body.

I don’t understand.

Postpocelipse said:

What do you mean by physical?

Something that is physical has spacial dimensions and exist in a discrete time dimension.

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What do you mean by non-physical?

That the mind is non physical but contained in a sensing physical body.

I don’t understand.

How can it be an out of body experience If the mind is still in the body?

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

That the mind is non physical but contained in a sensing physical body.

I don’t understand.

How can it be an out of body experience If the mind is still in the body?

Anything that has an effect on other physical things is itself physical, so a non-physical mind interacting with a physical body is not possible, because that would make the mind physical.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

What do you mean by physical?

Something that is physical has spacial dimensions and exist in a discrete time dimension.

What does he mean by physical mind? The brain is not the mind. It can only be a product of the collective firing of synapses, maybe along the line of the brain develops an internal hologram that develops with experience.

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

I’ve been patient, I’ve been good
Tried to keep my hands on the table
It’s gettin’ hard this holdin’ back
If you know what I mean

I’m sure you’ll understand my point of view
We know each other mentally
You gotta know that you’re bringin’ out
The animal in me

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get animal, animal
I wanna get animal
Let’s get into animal
Let me hear your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

PermeateFree said:

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

I’ve been patient, I’ve been good
Tried to keep my hands on the table
It’s gettin’ hard this holdin’ back
If you know what I mean

I’m sure you’ll understand my point of view
We know each other mentally
You gotta know that you’re bringin’ out
The animal in me

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get physical, physical
I wanna get physical
Let’s get into physical
Let me hear your body talk, your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Let’s get animal, animal
I wanna get animal
Let’s get into animal
Let me hear your body talk
Let me hear your body talk

Can’t see how you could have a physical mind. You have physical brain, but that is not your mind.

CrazyNeutrino said:

KJW said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What do you mean by non-physical?

And in this context, what do you mean by “choose”?

deciding one in favor of the other

I mean in what sense is the choice being made? For example, am I to choose which one has the better performance?

Postpocelipse said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

What do you mean by physical?

Something that is physical has spacial dimensions and exist in a discrete time dimension.

What does he mean by physical mind? The brain is not the mind. It can only be a product of the collective firing of synapses, maybe along the line of the brain develops an internal hologram that develops with experience.

Why cant the mind be within the brain?

the brain gathers sensing information and stores it as memories

perhaps the closes the mind gets to being non physical is with dreams?

but dreams still contain electrical/chemical energy as seen by MRI scans

can the mind experience quantum effects?

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

KJW said:

And in this context, what do you mean by “choose”?

deciding one in favor of the other

I mean in what sense is the choice being made? For example, am I to choose which one has the better performance?

Will 7 billion people make the same choice ?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Something that is physical has spacial dimensions and exist in a discrete time dimension.

What does he mean by physical mind? The brain is not the mind. It can only be a product of the collective firing of synapses, maybe along the line of the brain develops an internal hologram that develops with experience.

Why cant the mind be within the brain?

the brain gathers sensing information and stores it as memories

perhaps the closes the mind gets to being non physical is with dreams?

but dreams still contain electrical/chemical energy as seen by MRI scans

can the mind experience quantum effects?

If the mind is physically based then it is the quantum effect of the energetic activity in the brain.

With regards to physical vs non-physical, is a computer program physical or non-physical?

KJW said:

With regards to physical vs non-physical, is a computer program physical or non-physical?

Physical.

KJW said:

With regards to physical vs non-physical, is a computer program physical or non-physical?

A computer program is physical existing in various electromagnetic states.

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

I wonder if robots, and computers and AI programs could use quantum virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, as a non physical reference?

CrazyNeutrino said:

KJW said:

With regards to physical vs non-physical, is a computer program physical or non-physical?

A computer program is physical existing in various electromagnetic states.

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

I wonder if robots, and computers and AI programs could use quantum virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, as a non physical reference?

So you are saying all energy is physical? Even when it has no mass?

>>How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

A shadow is a non physical thing in a physical world.
A chap, a strange chap, smelt of sulphur, he wanted to buy mine.

CrazyNeutrino said:

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

The question I asked is about where to draw the line between physical and non-physical because this is not as clear-cut as one may think. For example, is the function of an object physical or non-physical? Is entropy a physical quantity? I would argue that neither are physical in the sense of being tangible.

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

KJW said:

With regards to physical vs non-physical, is a computer program physical or non-physical?

A computer program is physical existing in various electromagnetic states.

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

I wonder if robots, and computers and AI programs could use quantum virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, as a non physical reference?

So you are saying all energy is physical? Even when it has no mass?

I think virtual particles still have mass

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

The question I asked is about where to draw the line between physical and non-physical because this is not as clear-cut as one may think. For example, is the function of an object physical or non-physical? Is entropy a physical quantity? I would argue that neither are physical in the sense of being tangible.

I would simply mark mass as the boundary.

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

The question I asked is about where to draw the line between physical and non-physical because this is not as clear-cut as one may think. For example, is the function of an object physical or non-physical? Is entropy a physical quantity? I would argue that neither are physical in the sense of being tangible.

For completeness, is it possible to have both a physical and non-physical state?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

A computer program is physical existing in various electromagnetic states.

How could a non physical state exist in a physical universe?

I wonder if robots, and computers and AI programs could use quantum virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, as a non physical reference?

So you are saying all energy is physical? Even when it has no mass?

I think virtual particles still have mass

Photons are not virtual and are mass-less. There are non-mass interactions.

CrazyNeutrino said:

For completeness, is it possible to have both a physical and non-physical state?

The physical universe is composed of physical states, but not everything we attribute to the physical states are themselves physical states? For example, we can have two bricks. The bricks are physical objects, but their count isn’t.

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

For completeness, is it possible to have both a physical and non-physical state?

The physical universe is composed of physical states, but not everything we attribute to the physical states are themselves physical states? For example, we can have two bricks. The bricks are physical objects, but their count isn’t.

Can the concept of numbers exist outside of the mind?

Witty Rejoinder said:

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

For completeness, is it possible to have both a physical and non-physical state?

The physical universe is composed of physical states, but not everything we attribute to the physical states are themselves physical states? For example, we can have two bricks. The bricks are physical objects, but their count isn’t.

Can the concept of numbers exist outside of the mind?

I’d say so

Witty Rejoinder said:

KJW said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

For completeness, is it possible to have both a physical and non-physical state?

The physical universe is composed of physical states, but not everything we attribute to the physical states are themselves physical states? For example, we can have two bricks. The bricks are physical objects, but their count isn’t.

Can the concept of numbers exist outside of the mind?

Concepts, by definition, are conceived.

Lego men heads should never have been anything but glow in the dark.

>For example, we can have two bricks. The bricks are physical objects, but their count isn’t.

do ‘em bricks ‘ave an essence
a brickness separate of man his thoughts’n efforts
‘n’ what of one or two, a quality
does a brick need a wall’n association of concepts

Witty Rejoinder said:

Can the concept of numbers exist outside of the mind?

I think the number of bricks is every bit as objective as the bricks themselves. For example, three bricks is physically different to two bricks. Nevertheless, only the bricks themselves are physical objects.

Postpocelipse said:

I would simply mark mass as the boundary.

Do you think charge is non-physical?

I will go on record as saying this isn’t a meaningful, useful or interesting question and leave it at that.

KJW said:

Postpocelipse said:

I would simply mark mass as the boundary.

Do you think charge is non-physical?

Yes. It might be the product of physical states but has no other properties than polarity and conduction.

dv said:

I will go on record as saying this isn’t a meaningful, useful or interesting question and leave it at that.

If consciousness / mind can be found to be physical and the other non physical disproved then I think the question is useful.

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Are you saying light is physical?

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Are you saying light is physical?

?

Of course light is physical.

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Are you saying light is physical?

Yes, it’s observable or measurable. That’s all we really mean by “physical” – having properties that can be shown to exist.

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Are you saying light is physical?

Yes, it’s observable or measurable. That’s all we really mean by “physical” – having properties that can be shown to exist.

Well then that’s pretty conclusive. All is physical.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

Are you saying light is physical?

?

Of course light is physical.

Bubbles is closer to his PhD in Teaching than you. :P

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Are you saying light is physical?

?

Of course light is physical.

Bubbles is closer to his PhD in Teaching than you. :P

Sure but can he catch a rooster? Whenever he knows its momentum he can’t work out its position.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

?

Of course light is physical.

Bubbles is closer to his PhD in Teaching than you. :P

Sure but can he catch a rooster? Whenever he knows its momentum he can’t work out its position.

This I will give you. He needs a scientifically constructed advantage.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubbles is closer to his PhD in Teaching than you. :P

Sure but can he catch a rooster? Whenever he knows its momentum he can’t work out its position.

This I will give you. He needs a scientifically constructed advantage.

Has he tried lulling them too sleep with soulful string arrangements then whacking a bag over them?

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

I had already given examples of things that aren’t physical. However, it should be noted that there is a contrast between the types of things that I am saying are not physical and other things that are not considered to be physical due to the question of existence. Actually, I am not seeing existence as a criterion for physicality. For example, I don’t think the mind is physical. Indeed, I see a physical mind as being like a soul, because a soul is a physical notion… even if it doesn’t exist. This is because the soul is conceptually physical, the question of existence being conceptually different.

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

There doesn’t appear to be anything that isn’t physical, so the term itself is a relic of pre-scientific thinking.

I had already given examples of things that aren’t physical. However, it should be noted that there is a contrast between the types of things that I am saying are not physical and other things that are not considered to be physical due to the question of existence. Actually, I am not seeing existence as a criterion for physicality. For example, I don’t think the mind is physical. Indeed, I see a physical mind as being like a soul, because a soul is a physical notion… even if it doesn’t exist. This is because the soul is conceptually physical, the question of existence being conceptually different.

I think I disagree with several aspects of that.

First I’d say that “things” are physical by definition. “Thing” means “physical entity”, or (at the risk of infinite recursion) some“thing” that interacts with other “things”. On that basis concepts such as number, colour, or energy are not things. They are descriptors of properties of things.

So is a “mind” a thing or a descriptor of a property? It could be either, which is what causes the widespread disagreement about what sort of thing it is (if it is a thing). To my mind, a mind is simply a working brain, so it definitely is a thing, and is therefore physical.

As for a soul, if we mean by a soul something that continues to exist after we die, and provides us with consciousness when we are alive, then if souls exist they are physical, and if they don’t they aren’t.

>So is a “mind” a thing or a descriptor of a property?

i’ve seen it said it’s a proximate mechanism for survival

so, where are we at, the attribution of function

>then if souls exist they are physical, and if they don’t they aren’t.

what about invisible friends, including the working of self, ego, and consciousness.

what of being born into a world that anticipates you, the I, of the workings of ideology. It awaits, requires you be given a name so it can call you, yes it awaits you.

what of all that isn’t of (self and) the world that is excluded by what is that one might (or may not) be conscious of, that shapes self and what is.

What we call consciousness is just various aspects of a functioning CNS.

And as Rev says, KJW’s “non-physical things” like numbers of bricks or entropy, are observable properties of the subject of study, whether that be a group of bricks or a steam engine.

We do have to distinguish between cognitive modelling of the world and the world itself, but also remember that the “thing” doing the cognitive modelling – the brain – is itself part of the world.

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

transition said:

i’ve seen it said it’s a proximate mechanism for survival

That doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

transition said:

>then if souls exist they are physical, and if they don’t they aren’t.

what about invisible friends, including the working of self, ego, and consciousness.

All these things are caused by interactions inside the brain, so those interactions are real things.

transition said:

what of being born into a world that anticipates you, the I, of the workings of ideology. It awaits, requires you be given a name so it can call you, yes it awaits you.

what of all that isn’t of (self and) the world that is excluded by what is that one might (or may not) be conscious of, that shapes self and what is.

I don’t know what any of that means.

Transition seems to be describing aspects of social cognition, the kind of templates for social interaction with which our species is equipped due to the structure and functioning of the relevant parts of the brain, as selected by evolution and plugged into cultural history.

Again, none of this demonstrates that there is some meaningful distinction between “physical” and “non-physical” existence.

Bubblecar said:

Transition seems to be describing aspects of social cognition, the kind of templates for social interaction with which our species is equipped due to the structure and functioning of the relevant parts of the brain, as selected by evolution and plugged into cultural history.

Again, none of this demonstrates that there is some meaningful distinction between “physical” and “non-physical” existence.

Maybe, maybe not. That that isn’t is real in a way, but it’s not physical. Possibilities, of and into the future, or faded, or fading, these are real. You can try’n obliviate it with hard-nosed empiricism, give it a right-thinking sorta respectability (the obliviation), but you can’t find evidence that what isn’t doesn’t influence what is. It’s something of consciousness, of imagination.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Transition seems to be describing aspects of social cognition, the kind of templates for social interaction with which our species is equipped due to the structure and functioning of the relevant parts of the brain, as selected by evolution and plugged into cultural history.

Again, none of this demonstrates that there is some meaningful distinction between “physical” and “non-physical” existence.

Maybe, maybe not. That that isn’t is real in a way, but it’s not physical. Possibilities, of and into the future, or faded, or fading, these are real. You can try’n obliviate it with hard-nosed empiricism, give it a right-thinking sorta respectability (the obliviation), but you can’t find evidence that what isn’t doesn’t influence what is. It’s something of consciousness, of imagination.

Yes but imagination is something we do with our brains. It’s a creative modelling and envisioning capacity, part of the cognitive toolbox. What we imagine isn’t real in itself, but it forms part of the cognitive experience that the brain generates, which is certainly real.

And again we come back to the ontological bedrock of what we mean by “physical”, which is really just “real” – i.e., not an artefact of our measuring instruments or our misconceptions.

One of the simplist examples is of exclusion.

Take me sitting here occupying this space, typing stuff. Me and my activities are excluding other possibilities. It’s easy to apparently define what i’m doing, but the full complexities of it couldn’t be explained without regard what’s being excluded. Now the excluded doesn’t just reside in me brain activity.

transition said:

One of the simplist examples is of exclusion.

Take me sitting here occupying this space, typing stuff. Me and my activities are excluding other possibilities. It’s easy to apparently define what i’m doing, but the full complexities of it couldn’t be explained without regard what’s being excluded. Now the excluded doesn’t just reside in me brain activity.

You seem to be describing the fact that you’re focused on one subject and one activity, when there are lots of other things you could be doing if you so choose. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’re addressing.

>You seem to be describing the fact that you’re focused on one subject and one activity, when there are lots of other things you could be doing if you so choose. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’re addressing.

No, i’m saying possibility space is real, and that it’s larger than what is physical. It’s not locked in mostly physical.

transition said:

>You seem to be describing the fact that you’re focused on one subject and one activity, when there are lots of other things you could be doing if you so choose. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’re addressing.

No, i’m saying possibility space is real, and that it’s larger than what is physical. It’s not locked in mostly physical.

there is non observable space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

transition said:

>You seem to be describing the fact that you’re focused on one subject and one activity, when there are lots of other things you could be doing if you so choose. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’re addressing.

No, i’m saying possibility space is real, and that it’s larger than what is physical. It’s not locked in mostly physical.

Again that just seems to be an awareness of one’s own ability to make plans and change outcomes. Part of the privilege of having powerful brains :)

The French philosopher Descartes lived at a time when people were questioning many traditional beliefs. Setting off in search of something that could be known with absolute certainty, Descartes began his philosophy by systematically and deliberately doubting everything it is rationally possible to doubt. His plan was to see how far this would go. If we carry the process of systematic doubt as far as it can go, he reasoned, perhaps we will eventually reach beliefs that cannot be rationally doubted. If we do, then we will have reached something we can know with complete and absolute certainty. Among the propositions he eventually claimed to have proven with certainty were two pertaining to the mind-body problem:

The essence of matter is nothing but to be extended in space, that is, to occupy a volume of space. The essence of mind is nothing but the activity of thinking. From this he concluded: Since matter and mind have differing essences, the mind is not the brain, for the brain, being made of matter, is a purely material entity, and mind is not material in nature. Thus, the brain must be one thing and the mind must be another thing entirely. <START> The mind is therefore a nonmaterial or nonphysical entity.

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/mindbody.html

There are several opinions concerning the physical and nonphysical status of the mind that are included in the above link.

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

>You seem to be describing the fact that you’re focused on one subject and one activity, when there are lots of other things you could be doing if you so choose. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’re addressing.

No, i’m saying possibility space is real, and that it’s larger than what is physical. It’s not locked in mostly physical.

there is non observable space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

How big is the known universe?

It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1026 metres or 5.5×1023 miles), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.

or nearly infinite

cheeky grin

>Again that just seems to be an awareness of one’s own ability to make plans and change outcomes. Part of the privilege of having powerful brains :)

you and I a billion years ago were unlikely, though a possibility, yet here both us are an apparent certainty today.

.

The Rev Dodgson said:

First I’d say that “things” are physical by definition. “Thing” means “physical entity”, or (at the risk of infinite recursion) some“thing” that interacts with other “things”. On that basis concepts such as number, colour, or energy are not things. They are descriptors of properties of things.

I think this is quibbling over semantics. People often use the word “thing” to refer to a notion that is non-specific. The non-specific nature of the notion implies that it is not restricted to tangible objects.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So is a “mind” a thing or a descriptor of a property? It could be either, which is what causes the widespread disagreement about what sort of thing it is (if it is a thing). To my mind, a mind is simply a working brain, so it definitely is a thing, and is therefore physical.

The title of the thread is made more difficult because we don’t understand enough about the mind to be able to provide a definite answer. That is why I posed the question about computer programs. Computer programs are the closest thing to minds that we actually understand. This allows us to disentangle the meaning of “physicality” from the object to which it being applied.

The Rev Dodgson said:

As for a soul, if we mean by a soul something that continues to exist after we die, and provides us with consciousness when we are alive, then if souls exist they are physical, and if they don’t they aren’t.

I think we have to agree to disagree as to whether existence is a criterion for physicality.

this reminds me of the quibbles as to whether the singularity at the centre of a BH was “real” or not.

ChrispenEvan said:

this reminds me of the quibbles as to whether the singularity at the centre of a BH was “real” or not.

Oh lordy…

What colour is an orange in the dark

diddly-squat said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this reminds me of the quibbles as to whether the singularity at the centre of a BH was “real” or not.

Oh lordy…

What colour is an orange in the dark

Guess, um Dark Orange?

bob(from black rock) said:

diddly-squat said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this reminds me of the quibbles as to whether the singularity at the centre of a BH was “real” or not.

Oh lordy…

What colour is an orange in the dark

Guess, um Dark Orange?

I’m just going with ‘tangy’……

Physical mind = memory.
Non-physical mind = forgettory?

>To my mind, a mind is simply a working brain, so it definitely is a thing, and is therefore physical.

Mind’s been a somewhat controversial term with some for a long time. Gradually it’s going out of fashion and being replaced with brain, and further reductions like neuron and synapse etc. Everyone shall have a brain and nobody shall have a ghost in the machine.

The ghost in the machine’s a bit like God, the idea of God.

Brain’s a bit closer to the idea of fleshy wetware in ways, but doesn’t hint much at the mental states allowing detachments, too computation, whatever.

Further interesting is that computation of sorts was happening before minds evolved. What human minds do maybe an advancement this way, the jury’s still out regards that.

The joy of the mind is that it evolved largely as a consequence of a lot of accidents.

Is there anything of the workings and activities of minds that isn’t physical (including forces)? Probably not.

However, there’re a lot of parallel _processes_(loosely speaking) going on here on earth (too of the universe), that generate a possibility space. Cause and effect is not violated, but things do what they do somewhat separate, they may variously interact at times. When they do their pasts interact (which maybe followed by variously obliterations)

I think human minds (consciousness etc) can be seen as a new force. But i’m not sure how (entirely) new given there was some sort of computation happening before minds evolved.

The spinning and orbiting earth certainly are clocking the show here locally on earth. Moon too I suppose.

Are there things of this universe non-physical, even of algorithms (of sorts)?

Gets back I think to that old idea that nothing is created or destroyed it only changes form. How true is it?

Maybe some whatevers are destroyed, obliterated. I mean I could have done something other than think about this and write it here. What I otherwise might have done is with me and around the place as sure as it is night time on the otherside the earth.