here it is, Ebbie: (and after reading Eagleman, you should assume that in all of this lengthy screed, I had similar thoughts in my head)



goodness! That was Sept.8 of 2 years ago.
(and all this was typed Sunday night. Then, when I tried to post it, I found my cable was off due to, I guess, the storms we had earlier. I tried up till 11PM, but technology was not working)
I'll confess (or brag *grin*) that when a thread like this is refreshed, I usually re-read the whole thing before I look at the latest posts. I just spent most of 2 hours doing that. I really like to have the sense of it all before I comment.



Ebbie, your question is aimed at my very first comment, which is a bit unusual. I would have thought that 20-30 other posts mostly explained my position...but....briefly: Sure...I admit that I can *visualize* something that is not physically in front of me. I can, right now, 'see' you...or Amos in "my mind's eye"... that is what memory is about. I'd be a sad fellow without that ability. Memory enables us to 'proceed' from day to day and enlarge on what we did on previous days.
   But your question is pointed at the notion of the difference...or non-difference of 'reality' when referring to 'intangible' **things** (to use the most neutral term I can manage right now).
It's really pretty simple what I think about the issue, although as always, I can't both express AND explain--with relevant disclaimers & qualifications-- the differences in any short, pithy aphorism worthy of a wall plaque.

If I 'see' a cow (in a situation where I could touch or photograph the cow), that is a common 'experience' most of us share....even though no 2 cows are exactly the same. We extrapolate enough data and common concepts (done thru what is called "ostensive definition") that we don't have to question each other about 'cowness' (usually).
Now... next day, I tell you I saw a cow. In that first moment, MY 'image' of a cow and yours may be quite different, as YOU may have had experience with Gurnseys, while I saw a Holstein. But, if we discuss it, and I add descriptions of size, color..etc, your 'image' may change as you revise it with MY data and description, until you might possibly be able to go the field and find the very cow *I* saw...even among slightly similar cows.
Now...in all those words we exchanged, what is 'real'? Isn't it just memories of 'cow features' and colors and spatial sizes that we compare? Are those memories 'real'? Well, sure...but neither of us would claim (I hope) that we "had a cow in our head". We share words which we both agree on that relate to certain features of 'cowness'. (If I told you about a cow in Swahili, or Urdu...or American Sign Language, would we still share the same images?)

So...all those words to say that we are able to um.... 'form a picture' in our minds/heads/brains...whatever... to discuss cows. Pretty easy...not much to argue over so far.
Now, suppose I tell you I saw a 'stippleplunger' ...what is in your head? Do you see anything? Perhaps a toilet plunger that has been stippled? Maybe I tell you it is a part for an obsolete machine that very few have ever seen. (It's not...but maybe fuzzy beginnings of images swirl in your head.) Now, I can begin describing one, using exact measurements, colors, weight,....and even telling you what it did. You have the same type of data we used to discuss cows....and you can 'see' that stippleplunger well enough that I could send you to a room to fetch it for me. And you be rightfully angry if you couldn't find it and I finally admitted I made up the name, the description and sent you on a wild goose chase (or cow chase).

So..what was the status of that image in your mind/head/brain while you DID assume I was not lying? Was it 'real'? Doesn't it all depend on what each of us subjectively defines as 'real'? There WAS a real cow, but there was NO real stippleplunger....but we both share a language that we can use to 'sort' the images/memories in our mind/head/brain and re-assemble them to visualize cows..and even 'things that never were'. It's possible I could keep you deceived for years...or forever... about stippleplungers. Does the image I 'transmitted' to you have the status of 'reality'? What answer is there but, "yeah...sort of a reality" but *I*, of course, mean 'there are neurons in your brain that you have now shuffled and cataloged into patterns to allow you to recognize 'stippleplungers', even though there is no referent except in language.
You could even go explain it to others...and maybe get some to rearrange some of THEIR neurons, resulting in a search much like...oh, looking for flying saucers! Or unicorns.....or angels....or whatever.

So is the intangible "as real" as the physical? You see how many concepts are buried in the phrase "as real"...and the question about the phrase? Before we even begin talking we have slightly different concepts/notions/ideas of what "real" means and what the "as" might mean in the sentence! Then we are probably gonna have to debate the exact use of "intangible" and "physical". (as...does memory OF a cow residing in neuro-chemical synapses have 'as much' "reality" as a cow?

There are, simply, assumptions we usually make when transmitting information to each other, and we do NOT always mean the same thing about what seems to be a simple question. In the case of regular ol' cows,it's not usually a problem.... but them dreams and ghosts and OOB's and angels and stippleplungers are quite another matter.

The short form of my answer? "Sure... intangibles are real in so far as they are part of those hard-to-examine neuro-chemical reactions in the brain..that I can access in my own way"
I doubt that is very satisfactory to you (*and a few others here*), as you just LIKE the idea of attributing 'real' reality (if that makes sense) to concepts which you are emotionally committed. You are not alone...probably more people agree with you than with me...(possibly because it is SO durned much work to sort out all the implications of viewing it my way...*grin*. It's a lot easier to just use the common phrase "well, it's real TO ME!")

(I am suddenly remembering that phrase used so often in college courses, "But, I don't have TIME to write a short paper!")

As Bill Clinton said, "It all depends on what you mean by 'is'."