Reality vs Perception

Well put, and You could not conceivably model as such, either., except through a return to objective and cohesive formal arrangements.

The idea of a difference between a healthy or unhealthy perception also breaks down below and above certain parameters, and the question can only be resolved by integrative systems cohesive with the modeling system on the whole but not in the absolute.

But such precision might be more on the level of application rather than design.

Meno_

When approaching your post, it is hard for me to know whether I should use my normal technique of breaking it down section by section or try to get at the meat of the situation by finding what I deem to be the most appropriate information and expand from there. So hopefully I am covering enough of what you are writing.

OK, I will do my best but I can not make any promises as I sometimes get lost in thought in my current condition.

When you say St. James it reminds me of James S Saint for some reason.

I mostly agree and think that if intelligence is a reduction of information entropy then conscious apprehension and subconscious processing is the means of putting these fragments of information back together. The mind(conscious and subconscious) then serves the purpose of seeking out, defragmenting and understanding the surrounding reality; but with what purpose? It would seem that perception is polar opposite to reality in many regards following this line of thought, and therefore perception has the purpose of simply avoiding the entropy that reality creates.

I am perhaps looking at this from a slightly different angle - I have wondered whether multiple angles is something that the perception works with to solve its reality puzzles and that all angles only have one of two states and they are: somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect, further complicating the puzzle. The perception is taking many snapshots of reality in the attempt to apprehend realistic states that can be sewn together into a perceptive moving picture of sorts at least indicating that the perception is also in motion alongside reality << Just a side thought but I think somewhat valid.

I was reading of William James in the last couple of days and I found myself strongly disagreeing with him.

Hopefully I will remember the specifics of the disagreement and be able to post it here.

:-k

You have given me a lot of food for thought, after breakfast I shall try to give much more time to Your post here. The three Jameses is an ironic twist but is unsure if it was totally unintended. Be back soon.

In other words and I’m always reducing these fragments, for simplificaton’s sake; the difference between precepts -percepts and perception on variable levels, presents with a continua, in order : to maintain reality without closing usual channels of perception. Just like with a camera the variation is dealt with
integral manipulation between aperture and shutter speed.

In a way that manipulation can be trans posed to a wider meaning of accommodation, which could answer Your query about what form of writing is preferred by You. I think the answer to that is simply in my courtyard , for my disability regarding particularization vis., lack of knowledge to use my phone. I will look into it , because I do like to use both formats, and I don’t want to add inconveniencing as another challenging deficit to overcome.

. Ill try to overcome that issue.

I have some interest in the philosophy of his contemporary Charles Sanders Peirce. You know, the guy who is considered to be the father of American pragmatism (but who did not enjoy the affiliation with James which is what motivated him to change the name of his philosophical position from “pragmatism” to “pragmaticism”.) I was doing some AI research when I stumbled upon him. One person led to another and then I eventually ran into this guy. He’s either the most important philosopher that has ever lived (Bertrand Russell said something to that effect) or he’s a fool. I can’t decide because he’s obscure. He was a scientist; he wrote a paper on how to be clear; he was obsessed with defining his terms; and yet, his writings were nevertheless obscure. Strange. His entire philosophy is based on the idea that there are three fundamental categories: firstness (potential), secondness (facts) and thirdness (law.) His understanding of the perceiver-perceived relationship follows this train of thought. He rejects the standard dyadic relation between signifier and signified in favor of a triadic relation that goes something like sign-object-interpretant. The guy is one of the founders of semiotics albeit modern semiotics leans heavily on the side of Ferdinand de Saussure’s semiology (Saussure was the other founder) which is dyadic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Happy deciphering:
paulburgess.org/triadic.html

He also thought that everything is a sign. This would be the position of pansemiosis.

Agreeable that would-could have some objectionable consequences. However that is, the further differentiation between signal/signaling could eliminate that or at least diminish its appearing consequences, leaving the object variable and diffusable.

Meno_

I have briefly gone over what both Magnus and yourself have written and I will study the material that Magnus has suggested.

I will be back.

:smiley:

I appreciate that.

Meno_

Here I continue where I left off that if intelligence is a reduction of information entropy then conscious apprehension and subconscious processing is the means of putting these fragments of information back together. Also, I feel I must say that this interaction has been very valuable to me. A thought just occurred to me that the mere event of conscious apprehension must be fairly complex and carry with it, it’s own level of entropy - a probability that the apprehension will not take place.

Yes, this reminds me of the convergence that Eddington was talking about. An exception is made that we are dealing with probable types as opposed to absolute types - probable types of convergence leading to unity. The formal arranged centers of operation/s do adhere tacitly to embedded ones and the structural patterns are built up over consecutive generations - very slowly compared to surroundings. Generations need not be associated with human evolution.

Generations can each be attempts at understanding. Or in fact attempts at explanation. Each generation likely becoming clearer.

To illustrate: even if we are talking about two different things, there is a probability that {understanding/(an understanding)} will take place. Where there is less understanding there is more entropy of information - tacitly there are two probabilities >> the first is that there is information >> the second is that there is some understanding - bringing us back to what I said before about the somewhat correct and the somewhat incorrect - one might need to take a leap of faith here for the time being.

What is more general or hidden can point at truths that identifiable patterns expose.

If we are to watch the droplets fly away from a water sprinkler and observe their paths and impacts we are able to determine their source, yet their final destination is somewhat entropic in that they are now scattered but perhaps this does not capture properly what I am talking about because this principle is working in the reverse of information entropy - their final placement is actually ordered.

Hmm, I will put further thought into this.

I understand where you are coming from and a response from me would be dependent on further thought as previously mentioned.

High again, encode

I think that has been clarified to an extent sufficient to our purposes. (As far as. I can gather) at least as far as I can see.

Thank You. (for now)

I knew you were going to say that - I had already composed that post prior to the comments that Magnus and yourself last made and was not going to post it but I do read back over these threads when I come to composing/writing up material for my website so I thought I had better conclude with it.

Sorry about the ambiguity.

:smiley:

No worries worries, the ambiguity is mutual at least.

Meno_

I am able to further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance. We are talking about very small scales here so it is natural that our instruments are going to be not able to filter errors at this early stage in history. Therefore we are mostly unable to do anything with entropy trails and entropy signatures. That being said there are tricks that can be employed to overcome this minor inconvenience. In this post I will mostly talk about new research but I will say it again: I am able to further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance - at this point in time that could take a while however.

When talking about things at the quantum scale, we are talking about things beyond our scope of measurement, at least up until recently. As far as I know most of the mathematics is based on probability and therefore a level of uncertainty. Molecular intelligence can be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment but not for the reasons that you would want to hear. There is a reduction of entropy in the mentioned experiment. That being said, one should not infer that molecular intelligence can be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment.

Slightly off topic but related: it is early days but some new studies are suggesting that Correlation Actually Does Imply Causation:

I have other sources too but this was the quickest source to dig up. From the same article: “Additive noise model testing is based on the simple assumption that there is always some statistical noise clinging to the key variables in any experiment—areas where the data becomes fuzzy and unreliable due to measurement errors. Regardless of any link, each variable will have its own unique noise signature, with one caveat: If X causes Y, then the noise in X will be able to contaminate Y, but the noise in Y will not able to do the same to X. Because a cause can affect an effect, but an effect cannot affect a cause (read that last line a few times).”

Hopefully you are able to see where I am coming from here.

It does make one think.

:-k

I think I do that’s why decoding is a lot more guess work then coding. The question of probable schema is retroactively a structural problem, where as determination correlates basically by formative alignments between what has been caused by a chain of determinants based on originalintention and most likely outcome. This outcome is commonly misunderstood within its own sense of signification. I too hope I put it right.

The ontogenesis of intentionality within the flow of time.

Its almost like a coincidence that perception has taken a center fold between Dasein and atomism, in the current staging of the first three posts in philosophy course that could change by the time its read. In fact reading it changes
its sequence so one would never know.

Such is with picking up signals consequential or rather sequential reference, causation may be reinterpreted as causal determinants are interchanged, between signs and signaling. The ontogenisis may not really base on a determinate syntax.

This is a psycho philosophical exchange very early based on my conversations with Hobbes’ Choice. Really, though , I was still fishing as would a big fish in a small pound, bit that was a while ago.

I have been reading the suggested information on Semiotics and came across something interesting to me.

This is something similar to what I have in one of my models and works really well.

In the case of testing with words, I have a network of points that each word affects:

  • Inceptrons
  • Symboltrons
  • Featrons
  • Perceptrons HL1
  • Perceptrons HL2

An Inceptron point(aka node) functions the same as Saussure’s “signifier” in the above quote. By the end of the network traversal id est after the Perceptron HL2 point(aka node) the result is a bunch of meaning-imbued “signs” or percepts. This resultant forms a pattern that can be semi-correlated with activities(more patterns) in the neocortex(which I have modelled in a simplified format).

That completes one half of the process - the second half follows similar networks to be routed as output.

You do understand what I am saying - I am so happy. A guess as it turns out is a fairly simple process with very few steps involved and the neocortex is able to perform this function with ease - the preceding networks are also able to perform this function albeit with less agility.

A somewhat related topic to what I was talking about before:

You will have to dig a little deeper to find the connection but nonetheless, it is there and it is a very interesting article for it’s own sake.

Thanks . The process may be simple , but the connection is complex, and rather mysterious, as in the quest for both: the varied interpretations of perceptions as they form a common reality, ranging from fairly standardized to extraordinary.

Meno_

It seems I missed the part of your post after you made a subsequent edit. I may be responsible for taking us of track a little. Yes, decoding is actually all guess work as my models show - but we have not come that far in our conversation yet. I think I am following the rest of what you are saying - from my point of view, you seem to have moved us that far forward in our conversation but I have to decode what you are saying properly for my response to come out reflective of the way you intended your discourse.

The original intention and the most likely outcome are inevitably related. The outcome has its own sense of signification as does the original intention and they have a small level of entropy between them. Therefore relation is not absolute. The [matter(x) requiring resolution] of probable general forms is with effect from a date in the past a systemic dilemma(coming from the entropy involved), “where as determination correlates basically by formative alignments between what has been caused by a chain of determinants based on original intention and most likely outcome”.

The development of an individual behavioral feature(being intentionality) from the earliest stage to maturity within the temporal flux.

I would have to know first, whether you are talking Heidegger’s re-interpretation of Dasein or something else(which you may elaborate on for me) before I could interpret the full quote. There is change involved by the time you read something that was written in the past.

The syntax is always ambiguous.

May I request further elaboration on Hobbes’ Choice?