Well exactly. But system science does.

So at best you can argue that there are mechanical systems that exist as a subset of the more general metaphysical notion of a system, which is the Aristotelean four causes one. — apokrisis

Why would that be the best i can argue?

And yes, i understand that systems science, and others, may or may not distinguish between a system and a machine, but i do not (for a reason, not out of ignorance), and that approach has not failed me so far. I’m also certain that the Aristotelian way of looking at it is an excellent method for making these system determinations, but i prefer to use my own energy-information framework to work these things out. Each of the four Aristotelian causes is fundamentally an energy-information system, or the product of a one. Each one is some mixture of formative information and causal energy.

But this is just dumbing down the idea of a system to make it fit our idea of a machine as the canonical system. — apokrisis

I wouldn’t call it a “dumbing down”, but more of a “focusing in”. For me, a system is a kind of machine, and a machine is a kind of system, so i don’t really make a distinction between the two terms.

As for the rest of what you wrote, i mostly agree, although i don’t use Aristotle’s causal framework. I think you’re right about the watch. The watch is both a product of and a part of the larger system of human timekeeping, and it serves the purpose of that larger system. The cog is to the watch as the watch is to the system of time keeping.

If you subtract a part from the system, does it cease to act as a system? — apokrisis


Yes! — Pieter R van Wyk

I believe the answer to this question is not as simple as yes or no. Removing a single part from a system does not necessarily mean it ceases to be a system, although it might. Removing a part may simply change how the system functions. Likewise, adding a part to the system will result in a functional change, or the new part may completely disrupt the system and cause it to collapse or break.

It seems to me that there exists a minimal construct that represents the simplest form of a particular kind of system. Subtracting any part from this minimal system will destroy it, while adding parts may or may not destroy it, depending of course on the compatibility of the new part with the existing system structure. This essentially allows a system to either evolve or go extinct.

So i do think your answer to the question is correct, but only in the context of a minimally viable system.

That's not a good answer. It doesn't address the issue of decomposition or methodology. A good answer would be: We can actually see neural processes first-person, and not only that, but methodologically we have discovered how to create consciousness without needing to be conscious ourselves. — JuanZu

I don't know what you mean, but i don't think you know what i mean either. You're being too vague or inconsistent about what we are talking about. I tried to show you how an image can be decoded from the brain and displayed on a non-conscious screen as pure information. I never claimed that the information has to be conscious (just the data). You wanted to know how to experience the image instead of just looking at it on a screen, so i gave you a way to do that. Now you're talking about creating consciousness when i'm explaining how to experience the sensory data of another person with your own consciousness.

In our experience, we do not see the neural processes that would compose the glass of water. This points to an irreducible qualitative difference. Because if we try to break down the glass of water, we do not obtain those neural processes. — JuanZu

We do not see the neural processes that encode a glass of water; we experience the process of reconstructing the information about a glass of water. When you observe neural activity from the outside, you naturally would not experience the glass of water. But if you place your perspective within the neural activity, becoming the neural activity itself (which you already are), then you would experience the glass of water through the activations responsible for its representation.

When you look at a glass of water, your brain breaks down the neural signals from the light that hits your retinas and filters those signals through a dense maze of neural pathways sorting out all the features of the image and storing the pieces all over the brain. The neural pathways that are activated every time you see a glass of water forms the neural representation of the glass of water in your brain. You experience that neural pathway as a glass of water in your conscious mind when it is activated. No activation means no experience of the glass of water.

The information is arranged on a substrate in which the experience cannot be broken down without losing what we call experience (when we see a glass of water, we do not see the neurons acting). It is like when we say that experience is nothing more than neural synapses. But methodologically, we have a one-way path: the association from experience to neural processes, but not a return path: from processes to experience. — JuanZu

I answered this here:

We would then need a machine capable of writing (not just reading) to your brain using your specific encoding. Now, when i look at an image, you would see and experience everything i see. — punos

This process would stimulate your brain using the information from my brain, after translating it from my encoding to yours giving you an experience of what i am seeing. My encoding would be mapped and translated to your encoding.

In fact, this is confirmed in the video you brought: we FIRST have evidence of what experience is, and then we adjust the monitor so that the electrical signals resemble what we see in experience. But we can translate those signals into anything, not necessary into an image on a monitor. — JuanZu

The entire system can be automated to exclude the human from the loop, except for the subject being scanned or course. All that is needed is for the computer to control a monitor on which it can display images to the subject. As the subject views the images, the machine records the corresponding neural responses and independently develops a statistical model that identifies which parts of the brain are involved in processing what. This process alone can yield a viable statistical model capable of detecting arbitrary images from brain scans without human supervision.

It's entirely possible to create a headset or helmet that constantly scans your brain throughout the day and compares images from a camera on the helmet to your neural activity, and by the end of a week maybe, it will be a robust model of the visual data in your brain.

This raises a question: could we reconstruct experience in a physical way without first knowing what experience is (not seeing neurons, neither electrical signals, just a glass of water) and what it resembles? The answer is no. — JuanZu

I don't know what you're asking here. Perhaps you can rephrase it?

But it’s important to see what’s really happening: the system has to be trained for hours on each subject, with researchers mapping brain activity against known images and then building statistical models to translate those signals back into visuals. — Wayfarer

Right. Those statistical models are needed to reproduce the information contained within the electromagnetic signals emitted by neural activity. The information at this electromagnetic level is an encoding of the spiking electrochemical propagating patterns within the brain tissue. It is a byproduct of neural communication that can be measured and tapped into. The brain itself does not use these electromagnetic emissions as its own encoding. Therefore, there is no direct transfer of information, but rather a translation into a new encoding compatible with our devices that can then rerepresent that information in yet another encoding for the video screen or monitor.. Still the same information in a different encoding.

A single piece of information can exist in multiple places at once and be represented in multiple ways simultaneously. The information reconstructed from a brain scan is, in principle, the same information as in the brain if captured with perfect fidelity. It can be copied an infinite number of times, and each copy is identical to the original, provided the replication is perfectly accurate. The only limits to this process are practical constraints with current technology.

So what we’re seeing isn’t the brain “projecting” a movie by itself, but a reconstruction produced through a pipeline of human design, training, and interpretation. Without that interpretive layer, the raw neural data wouldn’t 'look like' anything. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is because human expertise is required to build the system that performs the decoding and encoding. This makes it possible to extract information from the brain even if the specific image was not included in the training data for the statistical model. Without this step, there is no access to the information in the brain in order to copy it.

They don’t show that the brain literally contains images — they’re model-based translations of neural activity, not direct readouts of images 'stored' in the neural data. — Wayfarer

That is exactly correct. It is not the image that is being read out, but the information about the image, which is then reconstructed into the image. Remember that the image in the brain is not stored in the format of an image. There is no little box of pictures in the brain with a little man looking at the picture when you see it. The information of the image is stored in the form of distributed neural weights, and we can only access that information when the brain itself activates it, which is why the stimulus and response phase of training is necessary.

It is possible to take neural data intended for the visual center of the brain and route it into the auditory center. In that case, the experience of the image is no longer visual but auditory. It is the same information, but situated within a different neural architecture. This phenomenon is called synesthesia, as i am sure you know.

To avoid misunderstandings, what do you think about the idea of finding the "living experience" in the brain? — JuanZu

The "living experience" in the brain is simply the active and recursive processing of the conscious mind, or the "global workspace". Experience is a stream of information continuously running through specific functional regions of the brain that architecturally encode the qualia of that experience. Without this recursive loop of self-information, there is no sense of living or experience. The "living experience" emerges from the information processing activity itself. Also note that the brain is a physical information system, or in other words "information that processes information". The key feature is the continuously active recurring information processing.

When you see those images on the monitor that "reconstructs" them, you are not experiencing what is supposedly being reconstructed. In fact, the word reconstruction is misleading. I prefer to say objectifying what is subjective, but then something is lost, something that is no longer on the monitor. Basically, everything is lost; the experience itself is lost. — JuanZu

I responded to that with this:

If you wanted to directly experience an image encoded in someone else's brain, here’s what i think would need to be done: One could use a machine like the one in the video i shared to find the encoding in your brain and, for example, my brain. After acquiring both of our unique encodings, one could then use an LLM to translate between my encoding and yours. We would then need a machine capable of writing (not just reading) to your brain using your specific encoding. Now, when i look at an image, you would see and experience everything i see. Do you see? — punos

Not at all. Because each person will experience it differently, due to their uniqueness. — JuanZu

I addressed that issue here:

One could use a machine like the one in the video i shared to find the encoding in your brain and, for example, my brain. After acquiring both of our unique encodings, one could then use an LLM to translate between my encoding and yours. — punos

Ok. So we have to differentiate between information and experience. — JuanZu

That's fine, but my original response was about finding an image in the brain, not about the experience of the image. Experience involves the processing of information, since it is possible to have information encoded in your brain without being aware of it at a conscious or experiential level. An experience occurs when you acquire new information through your senses from the outside, and also when you retrieve and reconstruct previously stored memories in your conscious mind.

The experience isn't made up of pixels. It is a translation from something to something totally different. — JuanZu

If you wanted to directly experience an image encoded in someone else's brain, here’s what i think would need to be done: One could use a machine like the one in the video i shared to find the encoding in your brain and, for example, my brain. After acquiring both of our unique encodings, one could then use an LLM to translate between my encoding and yours. We would then need a machine capable of writing (not just reading) to your brain using your specific encoding. Now, when i look at an image, you would see and experience everything i see. Do you see?

But it should be born in mind that those systems are trained on many hours of stimulus and response for particular subjects prior to the experiment being run. During this training the system establishes links between the neural patterns of the subject, and patterns of input data. — Wayfarer

That's right, the input stimulus and response sessions are meant to identify the encoding that a specific brain uses for the images or parts of images it perceives. Once these encodings have been established for that brain, the perceived images can be decoded. Each person's encoding is different, like a fingerprint. There is about one-third overlap for most people, and an "untuned" decoder may be able to retrieve some images, but it would likely result in very low-resolution reconstructions, if anything useful at all.

So human expertise is constantly being interpolated into the experiment in order to achieve these results. — Wayfarer

Could you clarify this statement please?

The answer is no. What I "observe" is a recreation of images on a device other than the brain, but your are not looking the brain and finding those images. — JuanZu

Then where does the information used to recreate the images on the device come from?

The brain does not store information, such as an image, in the same modality in which it was received. You are not going to find an actual image in the brain. What you will find, however, is information about the image encoded within the neural activity of the brain. This machine is able to identify that encoding and decode the image based on the brain activity.

Consider image compression. Take a random image file on your computer, run it through a compression algorithm, and then examine the compressed file. You will not see a recognizable image until you decompress it. This is essentially what the machine is doing: reconstructing images from brain activity.

Can we go inside the brain, see the neurons, and find the image of a glass like a movie and a proyector? The answer is no. — JuanZu

The actual answer is yes. Observe:

I think discussion of how the brain works is part of the singularity subject, but not exactly arguing our experience of pain and where that pain is felt. However, if we can feel pain in a missing limb, then maybe that proves we can exist without a body? — Athena

I just wanted to answer your question about:

Exactly where is the feeling in the brain? — Athena

I wouldn’t say we can exist without a body, since the brain itself is part of the body. However, it does provide evidence that the experience of having a body takes place in the brain.

I am not clear about what this thread's notion of singularity is. I was thinking that singularity always existed. You know the Hindu Brahman. — Athena

I presume that the specific notion of singularity being discussed here refers to the "technological singularity".

Every Atman (individual soul) can be seen as an image of the Brahman singularity, and thus each Atman is a "lesser" singularity within Brahman, the "great singularity". In my view, the approaching technological singularity represents the birth of a new, higher-order Atman in the form of a singular, integrated AI intelligence.

The brain processes pain messages but does not feel pain. — Athena

Why would the brain need to process pain messages? What would happen if the brain did not process the pain messages?

But even with phantom pain, the pain is not felt in the brain. — Athena

The reason phantom pain occurs is because the sensorimotor region of the brain responsible for the missing body part is deprived of input from the missing limb. When the motor centers attempt to move the absent limb, the nerve signals never reach their destination, and the feedback system to the sensory centers is disrupted. This breakdown in the sensory-motor circuit results in pain, because the motor center continues to send increasingly stronger signals to the missing limb but never receives the feedback it requires. In other words, that small part of the brain is essentially screaming and straining to move the lost body part, but without success. This creates a highly distressing situation within that particular area of the brain.

Now, if a brain surgeon were to remove the sensorimotor region of the brain responsible for that body part, the phantom pain would cease to even be possible.

Acupuncture is a method of regulating or modulating nerve signals. By stimulating nerves in specific areas and in specific ways, it is possible to influence how the body functions through those neural pathways. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) works in a similar way, reducing or eliminating pain by using electricity to interrupt pain signals, and the same with electroacupuncture.

However, even with phantom pain, it is not a sensation of pain in the brain.
The brain wrongly thinks the pain is coming from the missing limb. — Athena

If you disagree, then answer this question: if the pain is not in the missing limb, but also not in the brain, where exactly is the pain felt?

Exactly where is the feeling in the brain? — Athena

I just wanted to bring to your attention:
The feeling of your body is not truly the feeling of your body, but rather the feeling of your brain simulating it. In principle, it is possible to separate your body from your brain, and yet still feel embodied because the "cortical homunculus" in your brain, particularly the "sensory homunculus" or "somatosensory cortex", would remain active. This is why amputees can still sense their missing limbs and even experience pain in them. It is also possible, in principle, to retain your body but remove the cortical homonculus that simulates it. This would have the effect of making you feel disembodied, even though your body remains fully intact.

Daniel Spaleniak - Burning Sea (feat.Tomasz Mreńca)

In my opinion, the singularity has not yet occurred, but i do believe we have already crossed its temporal event horizon, and there is no going back. If, to you, passing the event horizon means that we are already within the singularity, then so be it. I believe we are somewhere between the edge of its temporal influence and its temporal center, accelerating faster and faster toward it. Because of the exponentially increasing temporal density as we approach the center, it will be upon us before we know it.

Common - All Kind Of Ideas (feat. Pete Rock)


Common - Wise Up (feat. Pete Rock)

Black Star - Respiration (feat. Common)

Hania Rani - Hello


Hania Rani - 'F Major'

Probably my favorite version of the song.

Slightly Stoopid - Legalize It (feat. Ali Campbell)

Thinking upon it further i came up with this possible solution, reproduced from my notes:

A Potential Solution to the Teleportation Paradox

The classic teleportation paradox asks: If a machine perfectly replicates you particle-by-particle in a new location while destroying the original, is the person who arrives really you? Or has the original been murdered, and a new, identical copy created?

The State of Entangled Consciousness

The experiment begins with a crucial assumption: that it's possible to create a second, perfectly identical body in a new location. But this isn't a normal copy. For an instant, every single quantum particle in the original body is quantumly entangled with its corresponding particle in the new target body.

According to this hypothesis, this perfect entanglement creates a single, unified quantum state. Instead of two separate individuals, there is a moment where a single consciousness exists as a unified quantum state, shared between the two bodies. It is not located in one body or the other, but is a single, coherent entity.

The Problem of Decoherence

This state of perfect quantum harmony is fleeting. The universe is a noisy place, filled with countless interactions, stray photons, gravitational fluctuations, and so on. This environmental interaction causes what is called decoherence. For a complex, macroscopic system like a human body, decoherence would happen almost instantly, likely in less than a femtosecond.

The critical challenge is that there are two ways this decoherence can occur. The first is an uncontrolled decoherence, which happens naturally if the process is not managed. If the quantum state is allowed to decohere on its own, the single consciousness will split. The two bodies would each become a separate, distinct individual, leading to a duplication of consciousness. This is why the decoherence must be controlled in such a way that only the target body has the chance for the next moment of experience. For this to happen, the original body must be destroyed before either body has a chance to have its next moment of independent experience.

This distinction is crucial, as the moral and legal implications of destroying the original body depend entirely on the timing.

• If the original body is destroyed before the entangled state is created, it is simply murder.
• If the original body is destroyed after uncontrolled decoherence has occurred, it is also a form of murder, as it results in the death of one of two separate individuals.
• However, if the original body is destroyed during the moment of quantum coherence, when both bodies are part of a single, unified quantum state, the act of destruction may not be considered murder. In this scenario, the destruction is not the end of a separate life, but the final step in a transfer of a single consciousness from one state to another.

The Femtosecond Solution

To prevent this catastrophic split, the solution proposes a radical act: the immediate and complete destruction of the original body. This destruction must happen with extreme precision and speed, within the fleeting window of a femtosecond, before the next moment of conscious experience can occur and cause decoherence.

The act of destroying the original body is the act of decoherence. In the framework of quantum mechanics, this action serves as a final observation or measurement. This measurement forces the unified quantum state to collapse, but since the original body is destroyed, it only has one state left to collapse to: the target body. Because the original body is destroyed, the single shared consciousness is left with only one viable option: to continue its existence in the new, intact target body. From the perspective of the quantum system, the next moment of experience is only possible in the target body, ensuring that the consciousness was transferred, and not duplicated.

By controlling the collapse of the wave function with this precise and destructive act, the personal identity is not lost but is seamlessly transferred, ensuring the continuity of the single individual without bifurcation or multiplication.

No, and no.

In my opinion, a spot-on description. Thank you — Pieter R van Wyk

That is an excellent opinion. Thank you.
:smile: :up:

In its most general sense, a system can be understood as an organized interconnected set of at least two or more components that collectively constitute a unified whole. The behavior of the whole is conditioned by the interactions of its parts, while the parts, in turn, derive their functions and significance from their relation to the whole. In this respect, a system is indivisible, as the whole cannot exist independently of its parts, nor can the parts operate meaningfully apart from the whole. A genuine system necessarily gives rise to emergent properties, thereby becoming more than merely the sum of its parts.

Seems appropriate for a music thread in a philosophy forum.

The Madman - Nietzsche

Lesley Duncan - Love Song

Thee Sacred Souls - It's Our Love


The Altons - When You Go (That's When You'll Know)

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there is. — MrLiminal

And what is the nature of this "Because there is"?

"because" = 'by reason of'
"there" = 'at that place'
"is" = 'to be'

"Because there is" = to be at that place by reason of... what?

It is not an answer but another question.

If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum. — Illuminati

I do have an argument, but I'll just observe for now. And yes, it is a little weird, but also interesting.

Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating. — MrLiminal

I think i know what you mean, but i don't mind the trouble.

Well, we don't see eye to eye on the whole zero and chaos thing, but that's okay. I don't want to either encourage or discourage you.

From my understanding, everything you quoted and said in your last reply to me is absolutely correct. I have a more engineering and technical oriented way of describing it, but it is essentially the same.

The only point on which i might differ is this:

The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

I do not consider "Zero" and "Chaos" to be the exact same thing. I think of Chaos as a kind of higher-order Zero. The difference is that Zero is the static undifferentiated balanced state, while Chaos is the state of dynamic balanced differentiation. Both sum to zero, but one is literally a singular zero, and the other is a multitude that adds up to zero. In my view, Chaos emerges from Zero, and from Chaos emerges order (ordo ab chao). Multiple parts or "pieces" are required to create emergent forms of increasing complexity.

By chaos, i essentially mean what you described in the following quote:

This initial tension and balance between opposites (e.g., positive/negative energy, matter/antimatter) is the driving force of change and evolution, leading to dynamic equilibrium rather than static opposition. — Illuminati

I do think the ancient and traditional way of describing what we are referring to in this discussion is somewhat incomplete, and it is not readily comprehensible to most people, particularly modern minds. Part of my project is to reinterpret what the ancients said in a more modern, updated form, while also filling in some of the gaps they left in their descriptions. It is quite possible in my opinion that these gaps were left intentionally, or it may be that they lacked the requisite concepts to viably formulate certain descriptions of the Monad and its subsequent processes.

Thats exactly it. — Illuminati

Yes, but how do you suppose the determinate and finite aspects of the universe come from or emanate from this Indeterminate One Infinite Zero? How and why?

Where does 2, 3, 4, 5... come from?

Havent found what exactly? — Illuminati

The thing of all things that is not a thing.
The sound of the silent word.
The nature of origin, and the point of reason.
The deep darkness from which the light of sight shines forth.
You want to step into the space between the spaces.

Any and all of these, and none.

I think you’re looking in the right place, but you haven’t quite found it yet, in my humble opinion, of course.

If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. — I like sushi

So, you think that an atomically precise replica of a genuine work of art is not art? For you, the art lies in the physical artifact itself rather than in the concept behind it? But earlier, you suggested that there should be no difference between the two, as i quoted below.

And if so what is there to say against them both being Original if they are indistinguishable by every other trait other than their existing history (which is unobservable physically)? — I like sushi

If i created a work of art, such as a painting, and then gave you an atomically precise printed copy of it, would you consider it art or not? Or, if i wrote a book and gave you an atomically precise copy of it, would you regard that copy as a work of literature?

We find difficulties in these areas and this interests me a lot as it is here that logic fails to demarcate what somethign si or is not due to the subjectivity of experience. — I like sushi

Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”?

Agreed, to a point. I think I would say 'practical' with a bit more force. If the physicality of a painting is primarily what matters (and I would argue that it is), then both would be indistinguishable. The history of the painting is much harder to construe as 'physical' as a painting -- in terms of aesthetic quality -- is not determined by its historical journey. — I like sushi

Some art is valuable not only because of its aesthetic appeal but also because of its historical significance. An old painting, such as one created by a famous deceased artist, holds greater value due to its history. This is why a replica of the Mona Lisa costs significantly less than the original. The value lies not in the physical painting itself, but in what one thinks and believes about the painting. It’s a subjective distinction, meaning that one could be deceived into thinking the copy is the original and still experience the same feelings as if it were, in fact, the original. Also, one can be convinced that the original is a fake and lose a large portion of its subjective value.

I am sure everyone has heard of the analogy taken at the atom level too where a painting is replicated down to the atomic level? If we then accidently mix them up do they both become the original to us? — I like sushi

Well if i knew which one was the original before they got mixed up then i would know that one of them is the original. I will have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong and i would know that fact. With no way of knowing choosing one over the other would simply be a belief and not knowledge. Objectively the original is still there but hidden away from our ability to know.

It would not be reasonable in my estimation to state that both are the original, because even if structurally identical they have two different paths within spacetime. Although for practical purposes in most cases i suppose it shouldn't be a problem.

A fake painting is still a painting. A fake, fake painting is still a painting. The ony matter than seems unclear is whether or nto it is fake. — I like sushi

"fake" = -1 [False]
"painting" = 1 [True]

fake painting => fake(painting) = a fake painting

• "fake" is referring to the "painting"
• [-1 * 1 = -1] = False

fake fake painting => fake(fake(painting)) = a genuine painting

• the first "fake" is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * 1) = 1] = True

fake fake fake painting => fake(fake(fake(painting))) = a fake painting

• the first "fake" refers to the second "fake" which is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * (-1 * 1)) = -1] = False

Keep on adding more "fake" and it will alternate between "fake painting" and "genuine painting" forever.

A "fake fake painting" if you will can also be thought of as a "copy of a copy of the original". The more "fake" you add the further removed from the original the "fake painting" will be. The difference in this way of thinking about it is that once fake always fake with no periodic alterations between fake and genuine.

For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. — MoK

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. Continuing with the same example, if i say “a car”, the idea that forms in your mind is a single, unified concept. You don’t consciously think about the engine, wheels, or chassis as separate components. The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes.

An idea may appear indivisible to your conscious mind, yet its underlying parts typically reside beneath the surface in the subconscious. These hidden components, however, can rise into conscious awareness when examined or reflected upon.

Consider the difference between a car mechanic and someone who simply drives a car. An average driver’s idea of a car is a unified whole, composed of only a few high-level parts: the steering wheel, the pedals, and the body. A mechanic’s idea of a car, however, is far more detailed and complex. Their knowledge and experience allow them to break down the “unified idea” into a multitude of additional components and their relationships to each other: the fuel injection system, the differential, the transmission, the sensors, and the control units. The mechanic’s mind has taken the same unified concept and, through a process of deconstruction, revealed its hidden assembly. Because of this his or her idea of a car is imbued with different affordances than the average person's idea of a car, and thus can do more with it than the average person can. This is where the value of an idea comes from. The more parts of an idea one is aware of, the more capacity for creativity one is afforded with that idea.

Questions:
What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? Why isn't every idea the same idea? Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together?

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds. — MoK

More questions:
Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? Also, what do you think accounts for the difference between the conscious and subconscious minds?