Where is "in the brain"?

If X is in the brain, where is “in the brain”?

Are there some X for which “in” is a location, and some X for which “in” is not a location?

I figure that consciousness is physical technically
as much as anything is physical, which apparently it’s mostly not

is that what you’re getting at with your question?
if so, thoughts?

“In the brain” can be a physical location. The frontal cortex is in the brain. Lots of neurons are in the brain.

It can be figurative, but that’s usually “in the mind”. But then it’s figurative - if you say someone has a crazy idea in his brain, you’re making predictions about his behaviour or assertions about his reliability. You may be referring to a configuration of his brain. But there isn’t an idea separate from his brain, burrowing through it.

Well let’s look at it this way. The brain is the brain and is located somewhere in space. If you were to take a sheet of paper and draw a mark on it we would know where it is only because the sheet of paper is finite. In other words it has margins or ends. We are then able to calculate the distance in our mind between these margins and the point and thus know where it is. We are able to do this because we have end points and all “distance” is made of points so to say where it is “on” the “page” we have to know where the page ends or where its “end points” are. This is because the page is defined by its end points in terms of where anything is located on it. This would be because the brain “say” is a point in space and to see where a point is you are measuring it in terms of other points. In other words location is a product of repeated similarity or points we could say, repeated points. You are measuring it in terms of other points because location is a form of differentiation. However it is a specific form of differentiation. It is the differentiating of anything which has a boundary like a simply circle, or cup, or fruit, or brain. We are able to recognize these boundaries through differentiation of colour.
So the way to recognize the boundary of a simple circle is to see where it’s colour ends and a new colour begins. However to know where a point is on a page why do we have to know the end points of a page. This is because where it is depends on “how many” points are left after it in each direction, up down, left or right on the page until you reach the margin. So this is how we know where a point is.
So how do we know where the brain is? We can’t know the boundaries of space so actually we don’t know where it is “in space”. We only know where it is within another smaller boundary in space. Such as where your brain is in a room. This is because we can only view or imagine such a smaller boundary.
It might be tempting to say where we know it is in space because we know where some boundaries are in relation to other boundaries giving us the feeling we have an uneven expansion in certain directions. This gives the feeling we know the brain say is more in this direction of space. However this is an illusion.

As for where is in the brain. That simply depends on where the brain is located. Whatever is in it is all that’s within its final end points or boundary. So the in is closely located to the brain just one step away. It has a smaller location as it’s in the brain.

Where is “in the brain”?

Particular material, such as the “limbic system” is located “in” the materials of the brain, where “in” means “among”.

Mind, on the other hand, is not “located in” the brain, nor is it residing “among” the materials of the brain. If mind was located in the brain or among its structures then it would be inside a sac of some sort, like air inside a balloon. Rather than say mind is “in” the brain, we might want to say that mind is manifested by the brain, although this would lead to a circularity.

No don’t really worry JohnJones it’s not circularity. As mind does not cause the brain nor vice versa. Rather mind is the brain another word for it in the typical sense of its definition. It only appears to cause the brain and vice versa because when you say one manifests the other you’re saying it leads to the other. However really it does not lead to its existence but rather you’re “thinking” of the mind leads to thinking of the brain. It manifests as if to come out of nothing for any separate unchangeable reason.

Is knowledge in the brain?

Well how do you define knowledge? That’s a very difficult thing to define and I don’t think we should really try. However if we use the word we must have some vague definition of the word were able to make use of. I think when we use the word knowledge were thinking of anything we can imagine pictorially or as sound. What constitutes fundamental basic building blocks constitute this I do not know. That would be a very interesting question for philosophy which has already been thought of a bit but on an extremely basic level.
However we know imagination is and is a result of the brain so knowledge is in the brain as it is the brain more or less. Though to be “is” something is that to be in it. We know water is in a container but that does not make it the container. Although a gold spec is in a gold cube but if we apply the word in like we did with water in a container the spec is only in the gold cube because it’s a aspect of it’s entire whole. Even the spec of the edge of the gold cube’s boundary is in it as long as it’s only an aspect of the cube and not the entire cube itself.
So is knowledge in the brain if all the knowledge were the entire brain then it would not be in it as it would not be an aspect of it. Individual sections of knowledge separated from other sections of knowledge in that brain may be in it as their aspects. You cant then say all the knowledge of the brain is in it unless you say it does not make up all the brain, then it’s only an aspect so in it. You could say individual sections if all knowledge of the brain were it are in it as their aspects. I’m really basing this all on the water in the container or bucket analogy.

Merging the last two posts, my response is

Knowledge is “in” the brain where “in” is not a location.

“…you’re “thinking” of the mind leads to thinking of the brain” -or - put another way - physical limits were drawn upon materials by reports of our experience in the laboratory, and the resulting limits defines the limits of the object we call “the brain”.

I don’t have an answer because I think it is a sloppy framework, which I assume is part of what you are heading toward.

I think the cartesian split had been carried over into the brain/body split. Very strange they do this.

Why is knowledge in the brain as opposed to in the body? If it is, then it sure sounds like we are talking about a location. If it is not, then it is misleading to refer to ‘one part of us’ as the location.

I don’t actually understand what you’re saying. Please make a clarification on what you’re saying at this point please. :slight_smile:

There is no knowledge other than what there is in what you know about knowledge. It’s self starting and self perpetuating.

There’s nothing mysterious about knowledge. In the sense i regard it, it’s just naming things. Is there anything to thought other than this?

Sorry about that. I am saying that the brain is an object that is constructed or physically described in the laboratory from reports of our experience.

In other words, the brain is a hybrid object. Although it is material its physical limits are not set by any material properties, but are set by reports of experiences in the laboratory.

Is knowledge really a thing?

Yes but that’s like saying that if something is in a room then it’s not in the house. However for something to be in the room it must be in the house and so on as the room is in the house. The room is located in the house therefore the person located in the room say is also located in the house. Location really means something some thing is in.
It is not a term that denotes a single place relative to a select thing such an individual person. It denotes a “whole set” of places the person is in. However the word location is used when speaking of a particular location. This is what causes the confusion. It is the confusion between the meaning of the word in understanding all it applies to (the whole set) and in the specific use of the word in language games that is in the context of the use of the word. The word takes on a contextually meaning but has a universal meaning too that’s needed to understand its contextual meanings. We could call this relationship in language a “universal aim meaning to specific aim meaning” or UAMSAM relationship.

I in fact hope I see what your saying anyway. Interesting indeed.

Thought is still limited to its endurance.

The ‘you’ is thought-generated. Thought is memory, your cultural and individual past, operating on the present situation. Each thought splits itself, as it were, into two: the object thought about and a fictitious, non-existent subject. It creates the illusion of the subject, the thinker. Since there is no thinker as such, we can never know the thinker. The thought is the thinker. There is no other thinker.

Thought cannot understand reality. Reality and life are constantly changing. Thought, being dead and static, can never understand them or know them. We know or understand anything only through experiences molded out of our past. If thought cannot understand reality, nothing else can, either. You can never know anything directly, without the mediation of thought or knowledge. If we could, then there would be no need to understand anything.

Thought superimposes itself upon the biological organism, creating a parallel world, the world of thought, which consists of all the things we strive for, our knowledge and values we give to it.

As to what you first had said there I think that’s true. In another way of saying it’s like saying that a pound of flour is a pound of flour. I think you just made it said it that is in a slightly confusing way. For instance there you used the word “in” which suggests knowledge here is in knowledge and therefore not it but rather something in it. You can’t be in what you are otherwise what’s the difference in language there is. Also you utilized a use of the word knowledge in two different ways by saying first as if knowledge is a definite something "in itself” and then saying know about knowledgeas if you are outside knowledge looking at it and not as if knowledge is something in itself and is the only thing that can look at itself, but a confusion in this wording that’s all.

As for saying knowledge is just naming things. I disagree knowledge is also obtaining you know pictures and cognitive sounds of things you experience in the outside world. I think you had maybe lead yourself to believe this because by saying it you are saying that we are obtaining information about the outside world by naming things in it and that’s k knowing.
What saying I’m really here is that you simply just failed here to see that there are pictures and sounds in the brain because you weren’t able to differentiate them from actual images and sounds in the real world as they appear so similarly.