That may the most common but that may not be the only way to describe a cube.
Underlying is the fact that we must all agree on the way we represent something.
For example, if we denote dE as being the distance between dots, if we start from the point (0,0) and darw a line left to right to the point (1,0), then double back and draw the next line from the point (0,dE) to (1,dE), then double back again and draw a line from (0,2*dE) to (1,2*dE), then double back again and again until we reach the point (1,1) with the last line then we would have draw a shaded square. Draw an infinite number of those squares and we would have drawn a shaded cube.
Now interestingly, we could associate each point in that cube with a SINGLE number which is the enumeration of the 'dots' that it took to get there. Welcome to the world of the 1d universe,
Of course there is also nothing stopping us from defining the cube in terms of 3d angles also such as in spherical coordinates however that is still 3d not 1d.
There is also the intrinsic coordinates which define things from the inside out more or less.

Ok, but no matter how we cut it, every healthy human can "identify" a "real" cube as essentially a 6-sided rigid object with 8 hard corners. The token "cube" immediately comes to mind as the "wave label" for the "distinct entity" called "cube." A cube in our "finite" world loses its definition the moment we take elements away from it where we can't recognize it anymore. This doesn't happen in the mind. The definition is static and innate. Once the token "cube" is assigned to it, we use "cube" to identify this 3D geometry.

So the question remains — if we can identify one, and it doesn't exist in our brain as-described — where exactly does it exist, as-described? This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, in my estimation, and I believe all reasoning on the topic has to flow from this fundamental question.

 

The existential nature of cubes? I don't know. Kind of a weird question.

How is it a weird question, though?

By observation, everything outside of numbers that defines thought is some kind of "visible form." Everything in reality exists as some kind of discrete form/shape. Every noun is mapped to some kind of shape or a conglomeration of shapes. Nouns are the basis of identifiable things we can "scientifically analyze." There are no definitions and there is no reasoning whatsoever without them.

Where does that shape exist as we describe it in the brain — or for that matter, ANY shape. Where does the laptop exist in the brain as described? The lampshade? The TV? etc.?

 

So the question remains — if we can identify one, and it doesn't exist in our brain as-described — where exactly does it exist, as-described? This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, in my estimation, and I believe all reasoning on the topic has to flow from this fundamental question.

It's called "consciousness". Every shred of energy in the universe is imbued with it, and it forms hierarchical structures. Animal cells are at a lower level, but nonetheless still conscious. And when merged together, what happens? An "ego" somehow emerges from this collective of cells. That's the "you", the human experience. Now gather several humans/creatures together and they quickly form a "crowd" consciousness. (It's easy to observe, once you get the hang of it.) Even the Earth itself could be said to be "awake". I feel it every time I go hiking through the mountains or otherwise immersed in nature.

 

It's called "consciousness". Every shred of energy in the universe is imbued with it, and it forms hierarchical structures. Animal cells are at a lower level, but nonetheless still conscious. And when merged together, what happens? An "ego" somehow emerges from this collective of cells. That's the "you", the human experience. Now gather several humans/creatures together and they quickly form a "crowd" consciousness. (It's easy to observe, once you get the hang of it.) Even the Earth itself could be said to be "awake". I feel it every time I go hiking through the mountains or otherwise immersed in nature.

Sorry, I'm not catching this... is it in the brain? If so, where is it. If it's not in the brain, where is it?
If the latter, are you not proving information exists apart from the brain?

 

Ok, but no matter how we cut it, every healthy human can "identify" a "real" cube as essentially a 6-sided rigid object with 8 hard corners. The token "cube" immediately comes to mind as the "wave label" for the "distinct entity" called "cube." A cube in our "finite" world loses its definition the moment we take elements away from it where we can't recognize it anymore. This doesn't happen in the mind. The definition is static and innate. Once the token "cube" is assigned to it, we use "cube" to identify this 3D geometry.

So the question remains — if we can identify one, and it doesn't exist in our brain as-described — where exactly does it exist, as-described? This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, in my estimation, and I believe all reasoning on the topic has to flow from this fundamental question.

Well then what is your take on a "hole". That is, a hole in the ground.
It is there, yet there is nothing there, otherwise it could no longer be just a hole.

 

Sorry, I'm not catching this... is it in the brain? If so, where is it. If it's not in the brain, where is it?

If the latter, are you not proving information exists apart from the brain?

I'm not trying to prove anything. You asked a philosophical question, and I gave you my opinion. I think the mind is responsible for these conundrums. The human brain struggles to grok its own nature and as a result such confusing thoughts arise. That cube you describe doesn't really exist "anywhere" apart from your own mind. It is "everywhere" you imagine it to be. And then suddenly it disappears from your mind's eye and immediately ceases to "exist". It's all very mysterious, isn't it?

 

I'm not trying to prove anything. You asked a philosophical question, and I gave you my opinion. I think the mind is responsible for these conundrums. The human brain struggles to grok its own nature and as a result such confusing thoughts arise. That cube you describe doesn't really exist "anywhere" apart from your own mind. It is "everywhere" you imagine it to be. And then suddenly it disappears from your mind's eye and immediately ceases to "exist". It's all very mysterious, isn't it?

A thought is the ultimate abstraction.

 

I'm not trying to prove anything. You asked a philosophical question, and I gave you my opinion. I think the mind is responsible for these conundrums. The human brain struggles to grok its own nature and as a result such confusing thoughts arise. That cube you describe doesn't really exist "anywhere" apart from your own mind. It is "everywhere" you imagine it to be. And then suddenly it disappears from your mind's eye and immediately ceases to "exist". It's all very mysterious, isn't it?

If we were talking about a mannequin named Siri-2060, with a soft neural processing unit made out of sophisticated nano tech grown in a lab from stem cells and I asked the same question to it over coffee not knowing she was a replicant, it would be an information theory question.

I’m not treating the brain here as anything more than science traditionally does, so my question is an information theory, computer science, chemistry and physics question. No partiality or bias, or abstract label like “philosophy” (which, in reality, any true philosophy is simply conjecture about yet-proven science).

Brain = grey, coiled neuronal storage medium, “dirt” derived. We can drive a classical mouse or limb controller circuit with it and move cursors on screens.

Where’s the cube as-described? You’re not trying to prove anything, no... I wasn’t saying “you” directly. I meant, “anyone asking the question.” “Cube” is in reality short hand for “any real 3D object” vs. a symbolic 1D numeric description. And we haven’t even hypothetically “skinned” the cube with something like scented “strawberry-skin” and spun it around in “time and space”, and observe, touch, smell or taste it independent of “I” which also “exist in the mind.”

If you’re going to say “the mind” and not “the physical brain,” then they are separate, correct?

It’s incessingly annoying that it might be just that simple to say “not the brain” and then move beyond conventional naturalist confinements, ain’t it?

Seems obvious to me, and I don’t see it as any kind of “magic.” Simple deduction, the same Boole makes when he says “universe of thinkable thoughts” and somehow it translates into real science and tech with no hocus pocus to be found.

The question is at the heart of the nature of information which is the foundation of all scientific reckoning.

We can therefore build a lexicon to discuss it, as I began to do in my “discourse”, because we’re discussing the “origin of scientific analysis” in the mind as our first tier of analysis of literally anything. Because if we don’t do that first, analyzing external reality with the mind first is kinda like using an oscilloscope to analyze elements of a circuit, but only knowing what 6% of the front panel does and means in my mind.

 

Well then what is your take on a "hole". That is, a hole in the ground.
It is there, yet there is nothing there, otherwise it could no longer be just a hole.

The hole first exists in the mind to be able to identify it in physical reality.

The hole is “nothing” framed by “something”, two property attributions that don’t exist in the numeric processing brain.

 

If we were talking about a mannequin named Siri-2060, with a soft neural processing unit made out sophisticated nano tech grown in a lab from stem cells and I asked the same question to it over coffee not knowing she was a replicant, it would be an information theory question.


I’m not treating the brain here as anything more than science traditionally does, so my question is an information theory, computer science, chemistry and physics question. No partiality or bias, or abstract label like “philosophy” (which, in reality, any true philosophy is simply conjecture about yet-proven science).


Brain = grey, coiled neuronal storage medium. We can drive a classical mouse or limb controller circuit with it and move cursors on screens.


Where’s the cube as-described? You’re not trying to prove anything, no... I wasn’t saying “you” directly. I meant, “anyone asking the question.” “Cube” is in reality short hand for “any real 3D object” vs. a symbolic 1D numeric description.


It’s incessingly annoying that it might be just that simple to say “not the brain” and then move beyond conventional naturalist confinements, ain’t it?

Seems obvious to me, and I don’t see it as any just any kind of “magic.” Simple deduction, the same Boole makes when he says “universe of thinkable thoughts” and somehow it translates into real science and tech with no hocus pocus to be found.


If you’re going to say “the mind” and not “the physical brain,” then they are separate, correct?


The question is at the heart of the nature of information which is the foundation of all scientific reckoning.

Oh, well there has been a lot of progress in that area in recent years, although I'm sure plenty of unanswered questions remain. As I understand it, the information is basically stored and computed within a mesh of gated ion channels (neural connections). And similar to sound waves, the information found at any given connection point essentially yields the integral (sum) of all of the other inputs. So upon seeing a cube, your brain computes a continuous transform on both the input and memory store, compares any "extracted" cube memories you may already have in your brain with the visual data, then finally passes that up to the "I recognize that!" system. Had you never seen one before (or perhaps in the case where too many thoughts have been "encoded" within a particular synapse) you're mind might just come up blank. But otherwise you just need a "good enough" copy in memory. Also the new experience (or even further mental visualizations) will furthermore likely just serve to reinforce the concept of a cube, making future recollections much easier of course.

 

Ok, but it's information describing information.

How could it not be? More to the point, we're perfectly capable of meta-analysis, e.g., using symbols to reason about symbols without need for infinite recursion or such. Logic is an obvious example. As long as we're clear about what the model contains, we can do things like "embed" the model as an object in a more powerful model. For instance, we can talk about first-order logic using second-order language. Likewise, we can reason about the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) using notions from analysis (real numbers) that simply don't exist in the naturals. Likewise, we can embed a sphere -- the surface of which is a 2D object -- in \( \mathbb{R}^3 \) and gain access to the sphere's volume.

Using information to describe information is par for the course.

Boole makes a very specific delineation between the number "1" and what it's denoting, namely "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

It is most obvious to me that he is here making "1", which is doubling as a logic state, a representation of "something." That "something" is the basis of information.

Not quite. First, it might be useful to note that, though Boole's work was historically important -- he was one of the first to recognize that logic can be "algebrized" -- he is not a good source for such things, as he was too early to really understand logic or algebra. In fact, what we call Boolean algebra (or Boole's algebra) isn't actually a proper boolean algebra.

More importantly, we now have a cogent and coherent way of describing these things. In the category of sets, any two-element set is isomorphic (equal in properties to) any other two-element set. This idea extends far up the hierarchy of models: any two-dimensional vector space over the reals is isomorphic to any other two-dimensional vector space over the reals; any two-element boolean algebra is isomorphic to any other two-element boolean algebra. That 1 can be mapped to true is neither profound nor unique. We can just as validly map 0 to true, or 42 to true, or "red" to true. All we need is a set of two elements.

Now, a formal system is comprised of an alphabet of allowed symbols, a grammar that describes the syntax of its formulas, i.e., the rules for putting symbols together to form valid sentences in the system, and a set of axioms (given valid sentences) with rules of inference for making new sentences. The set of all provable sentences -- the theorems -- in the system comprise a theory.

Note that, so far, theorems are syntactically provable, but have no meaning. An example from propositional logic would be "A or B", which is a valid but meaningless sentence. In order to provide meaning, we must apply semantics to the theory in the form of a model. The model defines the domain of discourse -- what we're talking about -- and assigns values to the symbols. If our model associates both A and B with false, then "A or B" has meaning, namely, it's a false statement. Importantly, a theory (the set of all valid sentences) can have one, multiple, or even an infinite number of models. We might change the model such that A evaluates to true, and then "A or B" is a true statement.

So, to bring this back to your exposition, the "1" is an arbitrary choice in any two-element set that, when associated with a variable, fixes the sentences therein to a model. The "1" provides meaning to the sentences, but what about information? I'd argue that the amount of information in the system is determined by the theory, before any model is applied, as the theory determines the possible degrees of freedom in choosing a model.

This aligns well with Shannon's definition of information. In his seminal paper on communication in the presence of noise, he posited that in any message transmission, the information present in the message is independent of any interpretation of the message itself. In other words, the symbols used to form messages (the theory) is what counts, not the derived meaning/interpretation (model).

Information is therefore separate from numbers. We don't know what it is. So how is it being "rigorously described" if information is being used to describe it? Is this not circular?

We can go back to Shannon for an example of a non-circular, rigorous definition of information. Suppose we are sending messages made up of symbols from the set \( \{s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_n\} \). Our messages are such that each symbol \( s_k \) has a probability \( p(s_k) \) of occurring. Whenever we choose a symbol to transmit, the amount of information \( I \) generated is the logarithm of the probability of the symbol occurring: \[ I(s_k) = \log{\frac{1}{p(s_k)}} = -\log{p(s_k)} \] The sum of over all symbols in the message gives us the total information in the message. In other words, the more "surprising" the message, the more information it contains. A message that simply repeats one symbol over and over provides zero information. This logarithmic identity is why information is closely associated with thermodynamic entropy.

Ok, here's my textual "flow chart" thinking for it:

1) Mathematically/scientifically we define a line as being composed of infinite points having no dimension, do we not? X dimension.

2) We then define a square as composed of 4 of those lines, connected at hard right angles, correct? Y dimension.

3) We define a cube as composed of 6 of those squares connected at 90 degrees with a "Z" dimension, correct?

If you can pinpoint a cube in material reality, your reference point is the above tenets, no? Otherwise you can't identify one, because a numeric representation of the cube is not the cube itself, and no machine knows what it's identifying unless a human tells it "the binaries match", and even then, a "match" is just another set of binaries.

So then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?

I'm not sure why you single out a cube out of all possible mental images. What's different about cubes than, say, imagining a dog. Any dog I imagine is surely not a physical dog. Even if I use my black lab Gunny as a prototype for my imaginary dog, it will not be a perfect "re-creation". Where does my imagined dog exist? In my thoughts. Where do my thoughts exist? Probably in my cerebral cortex. What does that have to do with information?

We don't need to bring mind into this. We can build a physical machine to measure information. If you disagree, then you should speak directly to the aspects of information that you believe are not physical.

 

By observation, everything outside of numbers that defines thought is some kind of "visible form." Everything in reality exists as some kind of discrete form/shape. Every noun is mapped to some kind of shape or a conglomeration of shapes. Nouns are the basis of identifiable things we can "scientifically analyze." There are no definitions and there is no reasoning whatsoever without them.

Demonstrably false. What is the visible form of \( \mathbb{R}^{42} \), the 42-dimensional Euclidean plane? I certainly can't visualize it, but it's very easy for me to identify, define, and reason about it. What does an electron look like? By its nature, it cannot look like anything -- it's smaller than any wavelength of visible light -- yet I can still identify, define, and reason about it.

 

I followed everything you're saying. But I believe we have to zoom in further to the proverbial "pixel level" to examine a more granular level of detail to explore this topic further.

First—not sure if you caught this after you wrote—but I clarified on previous reply to MrAl, I believe, that I used "cube" as "short hand" for all "3D objects." I like it as a default because it's one of the more common objects that comprises a certain... "visual rigidity" in contrast to the visible physical shape of the brain, and it was in drawing contrast between these things visually that was my point.

Of course any object will do.

But on to a reply: I now want to keep a super-focused point per post for clarity rather than addressing multiple. Let's start at the "hardware level" before we work up, if you agree.

To fold in a little biology here, the average adult human brain contains approximately 100 billion cells. Without invoking any meta-physicality, this 20-watt "device" is inarguably a product of the earth's elements in the ground and/or its liquid bodies.

This device is demonstrably "computing" with these cells. We have developed working technology to interface with it as a "soft" controller of external devices such as limbs and GUI manipulation devices.

My first question to you is this:

With what specific "things" is it computing? E.g., Would you say numbers—AKA "bits"?

(This post above was directed to Bogosort. Though it appears simplistic, it’s not—it’s a simple foundational question so I can ascertain a more honed trajectory for discourse.)

 

The hole first exists in the mind to be able to identify it in physical reality.

The hole is “nothing” framed by “something”, two property attributions that don’t exist in the numeric processing brain.

Isnt it interesting though that the hole itself is comprised of nothing at all, it is the lack of something which is in the same general location, yet we call it something.
But take a cube of some material and make a hole in it. We call it a hole. But then make the hole so big it takes up the whole cube, then we have nothing. Where did tho hole go.

So in this light do you think the hole should be called, "real"?

 

Isnt it interesting though that the hole itself is comprised of nothing at all, it is the lack of something which is in the same general location, yet we call it something.
But take a cube of some material and make a hole in it. We call it a hole. But then make the hole so big it takes up the whole cube, then we have nothing. Where did tho hole go.

So in this light do you think the hole should be called, "real"?

Yes, I do. Because I believe “nothing” vs. “something” are intrinsic states of a parent 5D “real substance” that is the origin of the term “Reality” and the forms that are in it, along with their numeric labeling and voices.

 

Oh, well there has been a lot of progress in that area in recent years, although I'm sure plenty of unanswered questions remain. As I understand it, the information is basically stored and computed within a mesh of gated ion channels (neural connections). And similar to sound waves, the information found at any given connection point essentially yields the integral (sum) of all of the other inputs. So upon seeing a cube, your brain computes a continuous transform on both the input and memory store, compares any "extracted" cube memories you may already have in your brain with the visual data, then finally passes that up to the "I recognize that!" system. Had you never seen one before (or perhaps in the case where too many thoughts have been "encoded" within a particular synapse) you're mind might just come up blank. But otherwise you just need a "good enough" copy in memory. Also the new experience (or even further mental visualizations) will furthermore likely just serve to reinforce the concept of a cube, making future recollections much easier of course.

I would emphatically say zero progress has been made, “heretically speaking.” Numbers/bits are stored in those “gated ion channels,” if anything. The cube, as described, with hard corners and infinite points, not one person has been able to answer, “where is it as described.” It simply either exists “as described,” or it doesn’t “exist” at all. Science’s current definitions, again, heretically speaking, does nothing but isolate more bits from others and calls them “signal.” The ability to care about the distinction from signal and noise, both of which are sets of bits/numbers, is not a property of “other bits.” Bits don’t care about bits.

Does Siri know what the weather “is” when you ask her what it is? Neither does the ion-mesh and its perfected human replicant form in 2060, with 12-trillion human brains worth of bits. Real dimension cannot be composed of countable sums of 1D bits, only digitally “represented” by them (...in The Matrix).

 

With what specific "things" is it computing? E.g., Would you say numbers—AKA "bits"?

The human brain may be the most complicated thing in the universe. In contrast, information -- like energy and entropy -- seems to be an abstraction of some fundamental (and relatively simple) physical structure. So, in the pursuit of understanding information, I don't think it's useful to start at the deep end, as it were. I'm willing to give it try, with the caveat that we will likely run into important questions for which there are no good answers.

As a general-purpose computer, the brain is pretty terrible. While it can perform certain specific tasks fantastically well, it is very clearly not designed for general computation. This deficiency strongly suggests that computation is, at best, a low resource auxiliary function of the brain; I'd speculate that most of those 20 watts of power are nominally spent regulating the various systems that keep us alive.

Some of the power is used to filter and interpret the constant stream of sensory data. Evolutionarily speaking, this is an important task, as food and tigers and potential sexual mates exist "out there", and we need to be aware of them if we want to eat, survive, and procreate (which our genes insist we do). As most of this sensory data is noise -- that rock over there is neither edible, dangerous, nor sexually attractive -- its energetically expedient to filter out as much of the noise as possible. Over hundreds of millions of years, brains and their sensory systems have evolved time- and energy-saving strategies for decimating sensory data. The human eye, for example, is tuned to respond particularly strongly to edges and motion. Edge detection allows the brain to quickly distinguish objects in the visual field, and movement is a sign of changing conditions, which is important to know.

I mention this because we naturally associate computation with accuracy, whereas, whatever the brain is actually doing that we might call computation, it's clear that accuracy is not its primary goal. Furthermore, the human brain seems less like a tight program that calls well-defined algorithms and more like a mish-mash of randomly discovered heuristics slapped on top of a spaghetti mess of a state machine. Nonetheless, we do process information.

Sensor cells communicate their information to the brain electrochemically (action potentials) in the form of voltage impulses. In general, these impulses are one-to-many transmissions, feeding a network of neurons, some of which belong to separate subsystems of the brain. Typically, the brain as a whole responds to the intensity of these signals -- how many and how often the sensory cells are firing -- as the various subsystems react to the incoming signal. Shine a bright light in your eye and the avalanche of sensor impulses will cause a whole bunch of transmissions that result in, among other things, your eyelid being shut.

So, from what we know, it seems pretty clear that the brain uses voltage impulses as the carrier of information. There are neither numbers nor bits in the brain, and, for many of its subsystems, the continuous gradient of the impulse stream is more important than the discrete on/off nature of the individual impulses. We obviously don't know where or how the information is stored, nor do we understand the processing rules. But we can be certain that whenever we think of a cube or a dog, there is neither a cube nor a dog in the brain.

Big surprise? Hardly. When light excites an optical cell, the brains gains that information not in the form of light, but in the form of a voltage. The physical form of information isn't what matters. Indeed, the light that excited the optical cell was itself not information, rather it was a carrier of information about the environment. A whole bunch of light might carry with it the information of the presence of a dog; the light is not the dog, but the light is what our body responds to. Our brain extracts this information, processes it, and stores it, probably by modulating the voltage potentials of a group of neurons. The information about the dog lives in our mind, but not the dog itself.

 

The human brain may be the most complicated thing in the universe. In contrast, information -- like energy and entropy -- seems to be an abstraction of some fundamental (and relatively simple) physical structure. So, in the pursuit of understanding information, I don't think it's useful to start at the deep end, as it were. I'm willing to give it try, with the caveat that we will likely run into important questions for which there are no good answers.

As a general-purpose computer, the brain is pretty terrible. While it can perform certain specific tasks fantastically well, it is very clearly not designed for general computation. This deficiency strongly suggests that computation is, at best, a low resource auxiliary function of the brain; I'd speculate that most of those 20 watts of power are nominally spent regulating the various systems that keep us alive.

Some of the power is used to filter and interpret the constant stream of sensory data. Evolutionarily speaking, this is an important task, as food and tigers and potential sexual mates exist "out there", and we need to be aware of them if we want to eat, survive, and procreate (which our genes insist we do). As most of this sensory data is noise -- that rock over there is neither edible, dangerous, nor sexually attractive -- its energetically expedient to filter out as much of the noise as possible. Over hundreds of millions of years, brains and their sensory systems have evolved time- and energy-saving strategies for decimating sensory data. The human eye, for example, is tuned to respond particularly strongly to edges and motion. Edge detection allows the brain to quickly distinguish objects in the visual field, and movement is a sign of changing conditions, which is important to know.

I mention this because we naturally associate computation with accuracy, whereas, whatever the brain is actually doing that we might call computation, it's clear that accuracy is not its primary goal. Furthermore, the human brain seems less like a tight program that calls well-defined algorithms and more like a mish-mash of randomly discovered heuristics slapped on top of a spaghetti mess of a state machine. Nonetheless, we do process information.

Sensor cells communicate their information to the brain electrochemically (action potentials) in the form of voltage impulses. In general, these impulses are one-to-many transmissions, feeding a network of neurons, some of which belong to separate subsystems of the brain. Typically, the brain as a whole responds to the intensity of these signals -- how many and how often the sensory cells are firing -- as the various subsystems react to the incoming signal. Shine a bright light in your eye and the avalanche of sensor impulses will cause a whole bunch of transmissions that result in, among other things, your eyelid being shut.

So, from what we know, it seems pretty clear that the brain uses voltage impulses as the carrier of information. There are neither numbers nor bits in the brain, and, for many of its subsystems, the continuous gradient of the impulse stream is more important than the discrete on/off nature of the individual impulses. We obviously don't know where or how the information is stored, nor do we understand the processing rules. But we can be certain that whenever we think of a cube or a dog, there is neither a cube nor a dog in the brain.

Big surprise? Hardly. When light excites an optical cell, the brains gains that information not in the form of light, but in the form of a voltage. The physical form of information isn't what matters. Indeed, the light that excited the optical cell was itself not information, rather it was a carrier of information about the environment. A whole bunch of light might carry with it the information of the presence of a dog; the light is not the dog, but the light is what our body responds to. Our brain extracts this information, processes it, and stores it, probably by modulating the voltage potentials of a group of neurons. The information about the dog lives in our mind, but not the dog itself.

Ok, good, we’re close to the same page... so essentially in the brain we have either discrete bits or continuous waves, and the cube, dog or DeLorean is not there.

So, if you rightly agree these things are not there, as described... where exactly are they?

 

Ok, good, we’re close to the same page... so essentially in the brain we have either discrete bits or continuous waves, and the cube, dog or DeLorean is not there.

I don't believe that bits or waves is an accurate model of how the brain stores information, but I wholeheartedly agree that dogs do not exist in the brain (maybe DeLoreans, though).

So, if you rightly agree these things are not there, as described... where exactly are they?

As I said in my previous post, the information about the dog exists in your brain (we don't know how though).

Permit me to ask you a question: when you see a dog, you're seeing the light reflected from the dog that enters your retina. Where does the dog exist in the light?

 

I don't believe that bits or waves is an accurate model of how the brain stores information, but I wholeheartedly agree that dogs do not exist in the brain (maybe DeLoreans, though).

Well, the 1983 model does, anyway.

Incidentally, the very specific reason I used the term "mind" vs. "brain" earlier is due to this specific statement: that the dog does not exist in the brain. If it exists any "where," it exists some "where" else. One might say "Reality," but this, too, is yet defined and there is no currently proven scientific "authority" to show partiality to it outside of the one that exists when you close your eyes and envision the same elements. I'm therefore using the term "mind" as short-hand for that undefined "somewhere." I think it is intuitive to separate the two due to this point for referential clarity.

As I said in my previous post, the information about the dog exists in your brain (we don't know how though).

Permit me to ask you a question: when you see a dog, you're seeing the light reflected from the dog that enters your retina. Where does the dog exist in the light?

That's an audio-video daily double for $2,000 under "Burned at the Virtual Stake" in my estimation.

The question assumes both the "dog" and the "light" exist "independent of" the "ones" in this mysterious "undefined somewhere" we are using to help identify them (again, "mind," or "meta-brain" or "<insert term>" for now, if you agree?).

I say "ones," because if you close your eyes, you can first "observe" this "dog and light" A/V sequence from your "mind's eye" in a different locale, and even modulate the type and nature of light that is arriving at this "mind's eye" to bring an image of a dog to "you" (also currently "undefined", and throwing another "component" into the mix).

Is this dog and light different from the one in "physical reality" ("space?") ? If you can visualize that dog in your mind's eye "space" and call it "Fido," and then use it to make a "match" to the one "outside" the mind who also is Fido (the same Fido), then clearly both are linked somehow, but both are somewhat distinct or one couldn't refer to the other as "something different."

Where is this dog and light in the mind's "eye and space" if separate from the physical one? Is the one in the "mind" a different kind of "real" than the physical one?