> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saj Malhi [SMTP:sajm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:08 AM
> 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--] (1)
> > [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)?
[JB--] An infinite circomference is not required. This infinite
nesting would rather concern the levels of material organization. For
example, we could imagine that some particles could influence and be
influenced by the behavior of one neuron (perhaps through microtubules or
other structures). We could also imagine that tomorrow's physics discovers
that these particles, that we consider today as elementary, is in fact made
of several sub-particles, and that these sub-particles influence and is
influenced by the particle of which they are part.
> 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--] I did not say that ! (see (1))
We could also imagine that the distance is divided by 2 at each
level, then the speed will be constant and finite.
>
> > [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'.
[JB--] You say that a sum of neuronal processes is not the
physical activity of the brain ?!?
>
>
> >
> 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!
>
[JB--] Godel proved that any formal system S0 has a proposition G0
which expresses its own unprovability in S0. Therefore, if S0 is consistent,
then G0 is true (because if it is false then it is provable and S0 in
inconsistent), but unprovable, therefore S0 in incomplete. We can complete
it by adding G0 as an axiom, or by adding a reflection principle which
permits to infer the theorem P from a theorem saying that P is provable in
S0. This gives a new formal system S1, to which the Godel theorem applies :
there exist a proposition G1 which expresses its own unprovability in S1...
and the same reasoning applies. By adding the reflection principle to S1 we
get a new system S2, then S3... We can define a system Sw = S0 U S1 U S2 U
... (w = omega which represents infinity) and then go on adding reflection
to Sw giving Sw+1, and so on. We get a sequence of formal system indexed by
transfinite ordinals 0, 1, 2, ... w, w+1, ... w*2, w*3, ... w^2, ... w^w,
... w^w^w, ... This sequence contains an infinity of levels of regularities
which cannot be constructed by a finite system (formal system, program,
machine...) but can only be perceived by creative intelligence. For example,
when we produce the sequence w, w*2, w*3, ... perceiving the regularity (xi
= w*i) permits to skip to the limit w*w = w^2.
>
> > 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 - 10:26:23 PST