Reality vs Perception

[Meno_]

No worries worries, the ambiguity is mutual at least.

[encode_decode]

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.

Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?

No. Young's Double-Slit Experiment is no longer a mystery for some of us.

Thanks for that, but further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance, not limited to basic organic material still has relevance in progress and planned studies in cybernetics ? The implantation of intelligence microchips is in the works, where the aim not only restricts the development of higher artificial intelligence, but a fusing with existing human intelligence, as well.

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:

Correlation does not imply causation. It’s is one of the bedrocks of science—of rationalism...
...But now, a new study in the Journal Of Machine Learning Research may change that, with an innovative statistical trick that can determine cause and effect based solely on observational data. The results suggest that correlation not only implies causation, but that correlation can prove causation—under the right conditions.

Source: vocativ.com

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[encode_decode]

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

Saussure posited that no word is inherently meaningful. Rather a word is only a "signifier", i.e., the representation of something, and it must be combined in the brain with the "signified", or the thing itself, in order to form a meaning-imbued "sign".

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.

[encode_decode]

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. Hain 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.

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.

[encode_decode]

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

*sigh* ...just when I came across this...
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists ... modynamics

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.

[Meno_]

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. Hain 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.

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.

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.

[encode_decode]

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.

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 original intention and most likely outcome. This outcome is commonly misunderstood within its own sense of signification. I too hope I put it right.

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 ontogenesis of intentionality within the flow of time.

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

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.

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.

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.

The syntax is always ambiguous.

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 pond, but that was a while ago.

May I request further elaboration on Hobbes' Choice?

[Meno_]

Forgive the lapse You must give me time I'm as usual in the middle- of - some -thing. Later thanks

Thank You Decode


Today is the day I go to apple and find the tricks it takes to figure out how to sub-quote so that I may comment on Your previous comments on a post or two back, so as to be able to dialogue likewise.

[Magnus Anderson]

My own theory of signs (or semiotics) is similar to de Saussure's semiology in that I accept his signifier-signified dyad as being fundamental. This is also where I differ from Peirce who thinks that his sign-object-interpretant triad cannot be reduced to a dyad. I certainly don't understand Peirce's obsession with triads. Where I am similar to Peirce is in my broad understanding of the concept of sign. To me, every relate-correlate relation can be considered a signifier-signified relation. Every relate can be considered a signified and every correlate can be considered a signifier. A light bulb, for example, being a correlate in relation to a light switch, can be considered a sign of a light switch. Whenever you press the light switch, the lights turn on. By reasoning in a backward fashion, the process that Peirce calls "abduction" or "retroduction", we can say that whenever the lights are on there was someone in the past who pressed the light switch. The lights thus become a sign of someone pressing the light switch in the past. A sign is basically any piece of information that we can use to make an accurate assumption regarding something unknown. That's what a sign is in the general sense of the word.

[Meno_]

Hello Magnus,

Heuristically a signal-sign-signaling triad, backwards. Implied the forward moving development of the sign , where the signal is like a bypass through which the signal moves forward the idea of the sign.

The sign develops through repetitive , multiple use of the signal , by using it to bring forth the idea of the signal
The sign is the culmination of multiple use. Hence, backwards, 'signal is a hybred between idea and use.

A signified-sign-signifier is only a type of specific usage, by a pre-existing usage of an idea between an existent , where it is a transcendent ., whereas the later had developed into the transcendental idea.

In essence Pierce shows the overcoming of the genealogy of the existential meaning.

The obsession of the reduction shows the ontogenesis behind an idea. Percy faces similar objections as those by Russel , and the idea behind the idea lands him in the pure pre-existing formal idea behind it- as Frege held, except in Russell's logic the the idea as object is material. You could characterize Pierce as more idealistic of the two.

[encode_decode]

My own theory of signs (or semiotics) is similar to de Saussure's semiology in that I accept his signifier-signified dyad as being fundamental. This is also where I differ from Peirce who thinks that his sign-object-interpretant triad cannot be reduced to a dyad. I certainly don't understand Peirce's obsession with triads. Where I am similar to Peirce is in my broad understanding of the concept of sign. To me, every relate-correlate relation can be considered a signifier-signified relation. Every relate can be considered a signified and every correlate can be considered a signifier. A light bulb, for example, being a correlate in relation to a light switch, can be considered a sign of a light switch. Whenever you press the light switch, the lights turn on. By reasoning in a backward fashion, the process that Peirce calls "abduction" or "retroduction", we can say that whenever the lights are on there was someone in the past who pressed the light switch. The lights thus become a sign of someone pressing the light switch in the past. A sign is basically any piece of information that we can use to make an accurate assumption regarding something unknown. That's what a sign is in the general sense of the word.

Yes, I agree and the following quote from Wikipedia sums it up in a different way but related:

Saussure posited that no word is inherently meaningful. Rather a word is only a "signifier", i.e., the representation of something, and it must be combined in the brain with the "signified", or the thing itself, in order to form a meaning-imbued "sign".

It is this combination that is not to be viewed as a one to one combination but rather a one to many correlation.

That is my take on it anyway.

[encode_decode]

The sister thread can be found here:

http://forum.neosophi.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=253

[encode_decode]

A one to many correlation is why reality and perception get further away from each other.

[encode_decode]

An interesting way to perceive can be found in the words of the following book on the Philosophy of Information:

• https://socphilinfo.github.io/resources/i2pi_2013.pdf

I have not read it all myself yet but I recommend it to anyone interested in perceiving reality in an unique way.

[Meno_]

Another interesting tie in is the difference between connotive and a denotive uses of language. Connotations are a mixed breed using many forms, unrelated to or ,related variously , sometimes mixed with emotive fragments, which minimize the differences between reality and perception.

[encode_decode]

Another interesting tie in is the difference between connotive and a denotive uses of language. Connotations are a mixed breed using many forms, unrelated to or, related variously, sometimes mixed with emotive fragments, which minimize the differences between reality and perception.

Yes, I can see why you say this and once I followed this path a little I ended up at the words intension and extension - with the word intension leading me to an example of Saussure's signifier, signified and referent system. Thanks for this snippet - it is helping me tie things together a bit better.

[Pneumatic-Coma]

Can we say that perception is a part of reality?

We are a part of reality and we perceive so perception is a part of reality.

I have frequently heard it contended that the truth isn't so easily defined, that every individual has his own particular view of reality. The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself is distinct to each one of us.

The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself changes from individual to individual.

While it's a fact that everybody sees reality in an unexpected way, reality does not care about our observations. Reality does not change to adjust to our perspectives; the truth is what it is. The truth is reality. The truth will be truth.

Reality, be that as it may, isn't generally a known, which is the place that an impression of reality comes in. While the truth is a settled factor in the condition of life, each view of the truth is a variable.

There is no competition between reality and perception, only between each individuals perception.

Each of us is a part of reality and so is our perception.

GoOdness your first explaintion of the subject was enough. The rest of these bafoOns turned it into something extremely complex and misconstrued. [Heargy Heargy!] I have for you my philosophical take on things. So, As You said. It was evident to those around to those which they had their own perspective and sense on/and/of reality. And had seen enough to define as much as they could the definitive truths to which they've faced. We all have had our share of moments when we thought reality fooled us. Looking back on it now. It seems it is no more than an elaborate hoax by perception itself than actual hallucinations. Don't you see? Certain events and actual realities have warped certain beliefs in people so that they see differently now. It quite simple. Reality can bend our fabrics of truths and false realities.

[Pneumatic-Coma]

High again.

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

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.

Lmao encode_decode reminds me of when I started out here.

[Meno_]

Well, nice seeing You back.

[encode_decode]

Don't you see? Certain events and actual realities have warped certain beliefs in people so that they see differently now. It quite simple. Reality can bend our fabrics of truths and false realities.

Oh I see it. As time goes by people change.

It is a progression - an unavoidable progression - we can not avoid but to take things in. The mind fights the brain and the brain responds impartially.

This is a balancing act that does not always end well for the individual attempting to perceive reality . . .
. . . and sometimes with the individual further venturing to give truthful account equal to what is actually real.