Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

The events making the tree in your experience.

Right.

There is a tree out side your body.

Different subject entirely, why are we discussing it?  The tree of your experience fits in your head, doesn't it.  Close your eyes and you can see it.  You can see it in it's entirety, I bet (think about how counter-experiential that is for just a moment....).  That tree, the tree of your experience, is not only part of you, but you experience it -as- a part of you, behind your eyes...between your ears.

[Jesster]

I was sort of following you until here. What are you smoking?

Everything that exist has a starting point in time and an end point in time. In between these 2 events it must exist at every instant.

That has nothing to do with our observance of an object, you loon.

[fdesilva]

The events making the tree in your experience.

Right.

There is a tree out side your body.

Different subject entirely, why are we discussing it?  The tree of your experience fits in your head, doesn't it.  Close your eyes and you can see it.  You can see it in it's entirety, I bet (think about how counter-experiential that is for just a moment....).  That tree, the tree of your experience, is not only part of you, but you experience it -as- a part of you, behind your eyes...between your ears.

From the above statement I am not sure if are on the same page or not. So please let me know your answer to the following.
1. On your tv screen in usa your are watching a live broadcast of a football match played in germany.
where is the location of the image you see?
a) in Germany
b ) on the tv screen
c) in your brain

2. There is a new technology that has been invented that can bypass your eyes and directly stimulate your brain, in this case where is the image of the game?
a) in Germany
b ) in the wires connected to your brain
c) in your brain

[Arkilogue]

False. Same thing conceptualized differently. The experience is the experiencer; the internal observation is the internal observer.

What do you say false? This is presented as an axiom. When you look at a tree you do not feel to be one thing with the tree?
I would think not. Despite the fact that the events making the tree are in your brain you do not feel to be one and the same thing as the tree.

To feel at one with the tree takes lots and lots of life risking practice.

[fdesilva]

Everything that exist has a starting point in time and an end point in time. In between these 2 events it must exist at every instant.

That has nothing to do with our observance of an object, you loon.

The observance or the experience is something that exist over a period of time and as such must exist in every instant within that time period.

[Arkilogue]

We divide time into nice segments and experience it as a fluency but a frame flicker rate of just 60 frames per second fools us.

The question boils down to whether the fabric of space-time is continuous or granular. https://www.quora.com/If-spacetime-is-gr...-spacetime

[The Grand Nudger]

From the above statement I am not sure if are on the same page or not.

You're not even on the same page with yourself, that;s the problem...you're discussing one thing and drawing inferences about another from it. I don't have high hopes for us being on whatever page it is together.

1. On your tv screen in usa your are watching a live broadcast of a football match played in germany.
where is the location of the image you see?
a) in Germany
b ) on the tv screen
c) in your brain

That would be b and c, except that there's no football match being played in my head or on the screen, ofc.  There's a neural correlate of the football match, there's a digital signal transmission of a bitmap. 

2. There is a new technology that has been invented that can bypass your eyes and directly stimulate your brain, in this case where is the image of the game?
a) in Germany
b ) in the wires connected to your brain
c) in your brain

Still b and c, since whether or not it can bypass my eyes is irrelevant, whether or not the match is in germany is irrelevant (whether or not there even -is- a match is irrelevant) and yet the match is still not happening in my brain.

If it's the representation you wish to discuss, cool. We're no longer discussing football matches though, are we? Or trees. We're not discussing a footbal stadium full of players or a growing oak in your skull. All the things required for either of those two things are most definitely -not- in your head. Not possible, not enough room. If it's that experience which interests you, there;s no sense in describing it as something you experience as external to yourself. The tree "out there" is irrelevant. You're talking about the tree in here which you -do- experience as a part of yourself and can fit in your head.

Whats true of the football game or the tree and whats true of the football game or tree of mind are not the same or in the same subset. They can not contradict each other (and so the football game can be, depending on the ambiguity so conveniently imported to the questions -all of the above-). These analogies are going to fail at important points, like the point when you describe your internal experience of a tree as some sort of perceived external. Or posit that all that is required of the tree (or even the experience of the tree) is inside your head.

[Angrboda]

1. On your tv screen in usa your are watching a live broadcast of a football match played in germany.
where is the location of the image you see?
a) in Germany
b ) on the tv screen
c) in your brain

That would be b and c, except that there's no football match being played in my head or on the screen, ofc.  There's a neural correlate of the football match, there's a digital signal transmission of a bitmap.

The real answer is to ask "Which image?"  There's an image in Germany, where the tv cameras are getting their image from the live event.  There's an image at each step along the way to your brain, otherwise the final image in your brain would be incomplete.  All of this is referring to an image or representation as being a real thing.  Is there really an image in the brain, or is it more a collection of memory registers each holding the various properties of the visual stimulus hitting the receptors in the eyes?  When I look straight ahead, there should be a hole where the blind spot is.  Does our brain "fill in" the hole, or does it simply not represent it?  You can't "see" what isn't there.  Regardless, the image in our head is not a one for one copy of the light hitting the retina; it is a constructed experience which only represents in the sense that a cake recipe 'represents' a finished cake.  It is more a description of what is being seen than an actual image of what is being seen.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the op is only interested in one particular image (as loose a term as that has to be in context). I think that the op may be extending inferences to those other images, (and things that aren't images in any sense at all) and then elevating all of that the to level of axiom.

[fdesilva]

That would be b and c, except that there's no football match being played in my head or on the screen, ofc.  There's a neural correlate of the football match, there's a digital signal transmission of a bitmap.

The real answer is to ask "Which image?"  There's an image in Germany, where the tv cameras are getting their image from the live event.  There's an image at each step along the way to your brain, otherwise the final image in your brain would be incomplete.  All of this is referring to an image or representation as being a real thing.  Is there really an image in the brain, or is it more a collection of memory registers each holding the various properties of the visual stimulus hitting the receptors in the eyes?  When I look straight ahead, there should be a hole where the blind spot is.  Does our brain "fill in" the hole, or does it simply not represent it?  You can't "see" what isn't there.  Regardless, the image in our head is not a one for one copy of the light hitting the retina; it is a constructed experience which only represents in the sense that a cake recipe 'represents' a finished cake.  It is more a description of what is being seen than an actual image of what is being seen.

To Rhythm and Jörmungandr
The image of interest is the image seen when a person say they see something. That is the image of the conscious experience. So my answer to both of the above questions is C or in the brain.
Everything we ever see ultimately is a construct of the brain. Now the axioms are about that construct. Please note the axiom is not saying anything about where this experience is taking place. We know that from what we know about eyes and brains etc.
As far as the axiom goes it is equally applicable if the person is hallucinating a football match , tree etc or they are watching it as a real thing.
Jormungandr from what you have written would I be right is say you agree with this view?