Thoughts of the Brain are experienced by us as arrangements and rearrangements – change – in a physical universe; but in fact it is really information and information-processing which we substantialize. We do not merely see its thoughts as objects, but rather as the movement, or, more precisely, the placement of objects: how they become linked to oÂne another. But we cannot read the patterns of arrangement; we cannot extract the information in it – i.e. as information, which is what it is. The linking and relinking of objects by the Brain is actually a language, but not a language like ours (since it is addressing itself and not someone or something outside itself).
–Dick, Philip K. (1981). Valis (p. 23)
PKD first introduces Fat’s journal with this entry, and rightly so; it forms the basis for much of our embrightened thinking.
Fat has very cleverly deduced that information needs its own langugae, that humans cannot interact with the stored information in any logical semantic manner. The information is the langugage. Attempting to find a way to describe the links, or joins, will ultimately fail.
Note also the correlation of movement (which is unfortunately corrected) and reality perception. The idea that we see links between artifacts, not the artifacts themselves, are how we distinguish information about a rock from the rock itself.
A rock is a rock is a rock, but without linkage, how can a rock be hard? Harder than what? It’s grey? Compared to what? A rock needs to be linked to sheep and office furniture in your brain for it (the rock) to mean anything. We need those links to enable us to create information.
Whether the links are in motion or not, as Fat here is evidently having trouble deciding, is irrelevant for this essay.