Monday, May 30, 2011
Stereonometry and Consciousness
* * *
worth checking out, also Kea's comment:
* * *
Stereonometry and Consciousness L. Edgar Otto May 30, 2011
How the Mind Works Steven Pinker 1997
I cite this author as a reference and for more formal documentation especially the parts of this book I reread and with new information, usually from discussion and submission between bloggers and those on the science or philosophy chat forums, and the fact of my new ideas on consciousness from a newer physics and mathematical view, perhaps my further learning or intellectual maturity or the shear fact of longtime focus on the issue with less demands for my basic living, from a vague recollection of some point on the edges of a room full of leaves distinguished by two eyes but not one in his discussion of stereographic vision, my estimation of this author has given me a greater depth and appreciation of his analyses, if not the parts I read earlier about our evolved ability to mentally orient and perceive things in three space.
Some of his conclusions that are reasonable, in perhaps the Bayesian way the mind organizes vision, leaves me a little sad at the human condition as to our failures to develop at critical times beyond the womb. We need to explore this area more to see where it applies and at what depth we may intervene and compensate the scientific facts of the assertion and theory. Yet, I understand enough now to disagree with the author, or rather to extend the implications of his theoriews which after all looks less directly at the nature of consciousness in itself. it is always a case where, when we turn a philosophy on its head we experience conflicts and vertigo.
Consciousness is the stereonometry of the topology and alephs- not just a product of them. Let those who grasp my recent insights make these connections for a wealth of things are there so to apply parts and tends in their take on their own theories of the bigger picture, and perhaps what in turn maybe transcended again from what may endure as a popular and accepted theory awhile then appear as a lesser fad of new generalizations.
Basically, as in issues of perception of bits of information as visual entities and encodings and against a background of our ideas of surface holograms and the inadequacy of the projective theory as the ultimate description and organization of space - the idea of what is an illusion from Leonardo to Wheatstone, is for nature ranter an objective fact of physics as being.
pg 244 the chapter The Mind's Eye
"But of course running a likelyhood backwards - saying that parallel stuff usually projects near parallel images, therefore near parallel images imply parallel stuff- is unsound." Pinker
If I had taken this argument to heart, paid more attention, it most likely would have made it harder to imagine a more metaphysical case which for me turns out more scientific than the reverse of this quote he calls a romantic notion of seeing lines as on the surfaces horizon of a lake or most everywhere.
My idea then on this, and my allies, others in this rarefied world of new explorations could this be seen as unsound. On the other hand our current and dry ideas on the old physics and golden age of cosmology and swan song of particle physics and new humility on the biological works of the genome - the nature nurture thing and blank slate the author keeps in mind. may one day be looked back by new generations with nostalgia for such a romantic age of speculation and dogged holding on to cherished thought sound scientific ideas.
* * *
In some ways Pinker is describing the eye as perceiving the quasic plane as to the inversion of light and dark pixel areas, in some ways the deep merger of the focus beyond the ground, all the cues of the eyes, even one eye for space perception, as in the idea of a mirrors that reverses things with no seem between them left to right this makes it hard for the mind to understand and conceive of higher spaces without some sort of sea sickness and disorientation as a perceptive background.
* * *
Guess that about does it for blogging- I notice I am no longer listed on Kea's blog which I did not asked to be and it takes a lot of pressure off trying to be more formal- I also notice a very negative comment to her from Pitkanen- not really about the content but some sort of philosophy of how one does such theoretical science. I will make a post not sure what I it will be on to show the growth in number of posts before I move on to other projects or find something truly new to explore.
I hope I have said nothing or put words into Kea's mouth for it was her papers and encouragement that made the most sense if one is willing to understand the details since I have been relegated to the blogging sphere.
* * *
May those who still have faith in the ideals and show respect for life work have all the luck to come. This has been quite an experience, but isn't everything?
* * *