Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

Seeing a red apple as a red apple in my dream and "telling me how your heart feels and what justice tastes like" are hardly the same thing.  My description of my dream apple (let's say), if it is an equivocation, is an equivocation made by the brain rather than a dishonest description on my part.  It is a problem for you that the imagination can construct things that never existed, because that means ideas are not necessarily representative of reality.

The honesty of equivocation doesn't rescue it from being a source of poor inference.  

Why is it a problem for me that the imagination can create things that never existed?  Is this you playing ball, lol?  I think you;re going to have to do better than "it;s a problem" and explain what the problem would be and why it's a problem.

You keep saying it, and it has never been true.  But hypocrisy is real.

Okay? You don't know and don't -want- to know what the term means, you're making an ass of yourself.

Not at all.  In fact, I see states, and information, in absolutely everything.  It is your job to narrow these many states down into "ideas" and "not-ideas," and in doing so, you've constantly referred to things using dualistic and arbitrary terms.

Excellent, wonderful.  You agree that states exist.  It's easy to winnow that down, like so..your objection is another honest equivocation.  In the context of comp mind (or comp anything) state only refers the to the states of comp components.  They're narrowed -by definition- from the outset.  So the "state" of water below freezing point..unless it;s part of a comp system, is not the sort of "state" we're talking about.

Refer to my last post.  When a -and- b are true, we say the state of the gate is c, true.

You could as easily draw "idea A" and "idea B" or "fairy A" and "fairy B." The apple-shaped fairy does a little dance with the red-colored fairy, yes?

A, B, and C can be anything.  Comp systems work by abstraction.

If what you are saying is right, then I could make a computer which checks if something is/isn't an apple, and whether it is/isn't red. The resultant logical output can easily be displayed in binary terms: 1 1 for (is apple and is red) and 0 0 for (is not apple and is not red). Now, if I print out my name in binary: 
011000100110010101101110011011100111100101100010011011110111100100100000

Actually, with the gate in question, you could only get "red apple"..it's not actually checking for an apple or for red, but the conjuction of those two things being true..it will only yield a useful output- when "red apple" or c is true (which is to say that both a and b are "on"), but again it could be checking for anything, abstraction.

we can see that the name "bennyboy" is a complex expression of various states of appleness and redness. And yet, perhaps only you and a couple of others see red when you read that particular name. Though we can interpret those bits as apple-states, they could represent anything else.

If mind is comp they can represent anything, it would be a universal machine.

This is the problem with your theory: states are ARBITRARY records, and need a context to establish meaning.

They;re very -specific- records, by definition..they are states.,  Part x in situation a.  They don't need context to work, and "meaning" is nothing more than translation in comp.  

And what establishes this meaning? More states? Another layer of operations?

Could be chance, could be the environment, could be genetics, could be more and more machinery above and below in varying states, sure...could be a combination of all of the above. My money is on the latter.