[cgio]

The JPEG itself is not physical, its storage is as is its reflection on a screen and these are two separate materialisations of the JPEG. If we assume it's the JPEG of a picture, it is the process of transforming a physical image into a physical storage of that image. The process itself is "non-physical"/mass-less (i.e. the algorithm), its realisation is physical (storage of instructions and execution).

[glenstein]

The JPEG can be thought of as an informational abstraction. However, it is always instantiated on some physical medium and it can't exist independent of some sort of instantiation.

As for consciousness, it may not depend on brains, but it may turn out to always depend on some physical medium and physical process, and that would be enough to show that it's a physical phenomena.

[cgio]

This assumes not only materialisation but also objectification of consciousness. It could be that it is a process that mediates physical phenomena without itself being physical. A hole is not physical but it's realised in the midst of physicality.

[glenstein]

The JPEG-as-analogy-for-consciousness assumes materialization of consciousness. Insofar as we're using JPEGs as a metaphor for consciousness, the fact that JPEGs can be regarded as an informational abstraction translated across different physical mediums is perfectly compatible with a physicalist story of how consciousness occurs, which was the point of this whole sub-thread.

>A hole is not physical but it's realized in the midst of physicality.

Yet no one seems to think this poses some metaphysical problem requiring us to go "beyond" physics to explain holes.