> What is a level of perception, why do you suppose there are infinitely
> many? How could there be anything but a small, finite delay between
> stimulus and perception? And what is perception? Why do you introduce
> separate notions of mind and brain when such notions are not needed by any
> theory? Let alone mind and spirit! This whole discussion looks like
> gobbledygook to me. From this exchange I am not at all convinced that the
> baby and physicist have different levels of perception.
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saj Malhi [SMTP:sajm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 27 January 1999 23:08
> To: Jacques Bailhache
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Spirit, conciousness, free will and infinite nesting
>
> >> > As far as I am aware the fastest neurons in the body conduct
> >> messages at
> >> >around 170 mph. How do you reconcile this with the 'infinite nesting'
> >> >theory? Or, more fundamentally, the very fact that the two ends of
> the
> >> >'chain of command' you have postulated are indeed communicating
> somehow
> >> (as
> >> >we are living testimony) surely precludes an infinite number of levels
> >> since
> >> >this would mean that:-
> >> >a). the transmission velocity is infinite and we therefore perceive
> >> things
> >> >instantly (not the case)
> >> >b). the transmission velocity is finite and we therefore don't
> perceive
> >> >things at all (not the case).
> >>
> > [JB--] There could be an infinite chain of transmission with a
> >finite time at each level and a finite total time, for example if the
> time
> >at level n is 1/2^n seconds, the total time would be 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +
> ...
> =
> >1 second.
> >
>
>
> I accept your demonstration of how an infinite series can sum to a finite
> number but I still feel that on a purely practical level you should
> reconsider the infinite nesting hypothesis. How can you fit infinite
> levels
> of perception, assuming they have a real physical presence (and if not,
> then
> how are they represented?), within the confines of a human skull (I
> realise
> there are mathematical shapes that have an infinite circumference
> encompassing a finite area but I do not think this will be a valid analogy
> since the brain is not an ideal (ie. virtual) geometric object)? How do
> you,
> under this theory, explain the small but definite time delay between a
> stimulus and its conscious perception? Is it your assertion that this
> delay
> is only the time it takes for the neuron to transmit the impulse from the
> point of contact to the first of your 'perceptive levels', and that from
> there the transfer of information through the infinite hierarchy is
> actually
> instant (and therefore exceeds the speed of light)?
>
>
> > [JB--] It's important to understand the difference between spirit
> >and mind.
> > Spirit is a metaphysically transcendental concept related al least
> >to consciousness which is an evidence, and probably also to free will (if
> it
> >exists), and perhaps also to creative intelligence.
> > Mind is the physical activity of the brain, the mental computations
> >like manipulations of numbers, which are done by physical processes of
> our
> >neurons
>
>
> I see no reason to introduce 'spirit' and 'mind' as two distinct concepts
> because the ideas are already well represented in the notions of 'mind'
> and
> 'brain'. The brain is obviously an object, something that can be taken out
> of the body and spread onto slides for our delectation, as can any other
> organ such as the heart. However, we can also view these organs 'in
> action' - we can monitor their electrical activity. Surveying the ECG of
> someone's heart does not elevate it to a transcendental metaphysical
> state,
> and so similarly nor should surveying an EEG. After all, no physician can
> claim to look at the series of spikes and read the patient's mind. He is
> still only looking at the brain, but an electrical interpretation of it.
> The
> mind therefore remains a distinct entity and is not the physical activity
> of
> the brain. It is somehow a sum of the neuronal processes but is not in
> itself a neuronal process. There is therefore no need in this argument for
> the concept of 'spirit'.
> >
> >
> An important point concerns the creative intelligence, which could
> >be defined as the ability to perceive the regularities (see
> >http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/regul.htm) :
> >
> >Metaphysical reflections <reflres.htm> - Perceptions, regularities and
> >reality
> >The only true reality is the present perception of our mental state which
> >contains the memories of our past sensations and actions. Everything else
> in
> >mental construction. Perception is a transfert of information from a
> >perceived reality to a perceiving spirit. Then it assumes the existence
> of
> >spirit <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/exesprit.htm>.
> >The informations that we perceive are not random, they contain
> regularities.
> >Mathematically, that means that these informations could be described by
> an
> >expression smaller than the one describing them trivially. For exemple,
> the
> >sequence "ABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABC" which contains 30 characters
> can
> >be described by the expression "ABC repeated 10 times" which contains
> only
> >21 characters. Perceived regularities permit us to suppose that raw
> >perception is the unfolding of a smaller germ (as
> >"ABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABCABC" is the unfolding of "ABC repeated 10
> times")
> >and that there exists an outside world which gives our perceptions
> depending
> >on the actions that we give it. This outside world is not directly
> >accessible but only through this information exchange.
> >From this information exchange, we build a mental representation of this
> >outside world. So, for example, the child examining his memories realizes
> >that each time that he raises an object and drops it, he saw it go down.
> He
> >deduces that objects spontaneously tends to go down. So he introduces in
> his
> >mental representation the concept of gravity force. In the same way, the
> >physicist builds this mental construct further in a more precize and
> >quantitative way, noticing that this object follows a trajectory of
> equation
> >z = 1/2 g tē + z0. So he builds what he calls the laws of physics, but
> which
> >are in fact only mathematical models describing more and more precize
> >approximations of reality, but always approximatives and limited to a
> >validity domain depending on the experimental conditions from which the
> >theory has been built.
> >The regularities of our perceptions appear to us with such a strength
> that
> >we forget that we perceive only perceptions, that the physical universe,
> >space, time, matter... are only mental constructions.
>
>
>
> Mathematics is an interpretation of the natural world, a means of
> translating what we peceive into something we understand. As with any
> interpretation then, it is limited by the one's level of comprehension.
> Hence in your example, the baby and the physicist perceive the same
> phenomenon but at different levels of comprehension. It is not difficult
> to
> argue from this that our apparent (or perceived) reality is wholly
> dependent
> on our level of understanding. Hence, though I largely agree with your
> comment "the only true reality is the present perception of our mental
> state" I would put it a slightly different way - "The only true reality
> for
> an observer is the present interpretation (within the context of his
> knowledge) of his perceptions."
>
>
> >This ability of perceiving regularities is also required for the
> >transfinite iteration of reflection principle (see
> >http://www.byoc.com/homepage/134885/text/logic/logrefl6.htm) to produce a
> >sequence of transfinite ordinals getting bigger and bigger without being
> >limited by a given ordinal. For this we need to perceive the regularities
> in
> >a sequence of ordinals x1, x2, x3... and to recognize that there is a f
> such
> >that xi = f(i), and then skip to x omega = limit of f(i). We must avoid
> the
> >trap of thinking that we are in a creative process producing x1, x2,
> x3...
> > (see also http://www.website2u.com/log/text/logic/regular.htm (in
> >french)).
> >
>
> Frankly, you have completely lost me here!
>
>
> > Is this creative intelligence a feature of the spirit or of the mind
> >? I am not very sure about it.
> > According to Hofstadter (Godel, Escher, Bach), this is an activity
> >of the mind, subject to godelization, therefore limited, like any finite
> >system (formal system, machine), but in the case of the brain the limit
> is
> >fuzzy.
> > Another possibility would be that the ability of manipulating
> >mathematical objects like transfinite ordinals is a feature of the mind,
> but
> >the enlightment of the recognition of the regularity may come from the
> >spirit, and our limitations might come from the limitations of the mind
> for
> >understanding complex mathematical objects.
>
>
> I am inclined to agree with your final point here, that we (ie. our minds)
> are limited in our understanding of the world due to the limitations of
> the
> brain in processing the interpretation we use, ie. mathematics.
> Furthermore,
> the fact that we are aware that we do not understand certain phenomena
> suggests this limitation is indeed more in the brain than in the mind.
> >
> >==========================
> >Jacques Bailhache
> >Y2K Centre of Expertise (BRO)
> >DTN: 856 ext. 7662
> >Tel: +32-2 729.7662, Fax: +32-2 729.7985
> >Email: mailto:Jacques.Bailhache.domain.name.hidden
> >Visit my home page :
> > http://www.website2u.com/log/index.htm
> > http://www.byoc.com/homepage/134885/
> > http://www.chez.com/log/
> > http://members.rotfl.com/log/
> >
> >
> >
Received on Thu Jan 28 1999 - 01:39:35 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST