[General] To realists out there

Mon Jan 22 16:03:02 PST 2018

Hi Wolfgang,

This example does not need to make any a-priori assumption that there is an objective reality.

We know that what we think we "see" is due to the constant arrival of photons of the visible frequencies range individually hitting the millions of sensory cells in our retinas. The related electro-chemical impulses that the neurons located in the retinas send to the intercalary layers of the neocortex still arrive there separately. The coherences (shapes, colors, etc) present in the flow at any given moment are automatically decoded, selected and "displayed" in real time to the output layer in the visual cortex for our "awareness" to become cognizant of.

If the images move when we warp our retina by pushing on it, it can only be because it affects the angle at which the photons travel to the retinas through the eye. The same if you close your eyes. Light stops hitting the cells, diminishing the intensity and number of signals going to the visual area.

We are physiologically unable by structure to become aware of the arrivl of the individual signals to each neuron in the retina, although we now understand that this is what happens. We can become aware only of the result of the processing done by the neural net in simultaneously correlating the whole collection of individual signals "after" they have been received and correlated to identify the detailed "images" that we then can become aware of. 

That's how every part of the neocortex operates as was discovered by Donald Hebb.

The individual input signals reaching the retinas are "real", but the "images" that we "see" are the result of the automatic processing of the 6 layer neural network and are completely resolved only when reaching the output layer after having electrochemically gone through the thickness of the network. Even artificial neural networks operate like this, whether real networks built with electronic parts or simulated by programming on linear processors.

What Chip is talking about is that we need to understand better what produces and sends these signals that hit the retinas. That's the physical reality he is talking about. The elementary particles making up the atoms that make up all existing bodies, including our own bodies, and even our neocortices.

The shadows on Plato's cave refer to someting else. The inner working of the neocortex was studied and understood by Hebb only in the 1940's. Plato had no idea that it even existed. The shadows on the back wall of the cave refer to the fact that we tend to become deeply certain of our conclusions. So deeply certain that once reached, it is very difficult for us to question them and reconsider, even when faced with new evidence that a conclusion could be questioned. The Cave allegory carries an even a deeper message, that even if we succeed in requestioning our deepest conclusions, we should question them again, because we will again become too deeply certain to put them in question.

Best Regards

André

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:41 -0800, Wolfgang Baer  wrote:

Andre:

Please take a step back and look at your example. Is it not based on the a-priori assumption that there is an objective reality and signals from that assumed objective reality flow through our neural structure? What if we eliminate this assumption? What if we realize that our mental processing starts with the interaction at the retina. We do not know what caused it a-priori but what we are doing and have always done is attempt to find explanations for the imges produced by that interaction. We explain the shadows in Plato's cave.

I thought this simple and clear example is demonstrable proof that we do not see objects. Nothing profound or complex. The object does not move when the screen on which an image is projected is warped. Because they do move when we warp our retina by pushing on it we do not see objects but processed images. It has been a puzzle for me that this simple and demonstrable proof is

This does not mean its all in the mind, it means we all see our own interpretation and once understood it leaves the door open for alternative and hopefully improved concepts of reality as quantum theory has shown us.
wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/22/2018 5:26 AM, André Michaud wrote:

Hi Chip,

I absolutely agree with you.

Each of our "awarenesses" is separated from this really existing physical reality by the double interface provided by each our neocortex. 

Our nerve endings feed the "signals" they receive from "outside" to the entry layer of the neocortex (a 6-layer neural network), which is the outer interface. The intercalary layers automatically correlate in real time the tens of millions of signals into coherences that are automatically provided at the output layer (the second interface) of which our awareness is constantly observing. 

These research were carried out by neurophysiologists Ivan Pavlov (available only in Russian and German), Donald Hebb (available only in English), and Paul Chauchard (available only in French) mainly.

If you are interested, a general summary of their research is available here: 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf

Best Regards

André

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:37:43 -0600, "Chip Akins"  wrote:

Hi Wolf

Yes. I agree that we need to make that next step of describing what is going on which creates what we can observe.

But I also firmly believe that there is an independent objective reality which is described by the energy and its reaction to space. And that we are also made of the same kinds of thing which we observe (Energy reacting with space creating particles, etc.).

The independent objective reality does not depend on us for it to exist, but we can interact with it and make small changes to it in the scheme of things. The building, tree, mountain, planet, or galaxy, are still there, whether we observe them or not.

We can change the shape of the lens in our eye and distort an image just as we can change the shape of an external lens and distort an image. The laws which govern these reactions are not changed. Those laws, those causes, which define our universe, are the reasons that particles exist and behave as they do. It is not our observation which defines those objective laws of the universe. But we can do a much better job of understanding those laws. That is the next step.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:58 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] To realists out there

Chip:

The point is we do not see objects out there, we process the imagefalling on our retina using our encoded beliefs into a mental mage display, we do not directly see objects but instead created the perception with all its properties

If we saw objects directly they would not move when we fiddle with the image in the experiment I described 

And because we do not see object directly but only perceptions that we believe is reality, once we realize reality is NOT objects then the door is open to ask the question, "Is there a better assumption about what explains our sensations?"

And a step along this path was taken by Quantum Theory which substitutes probability waves for the classic object reality.

But probabilities are squirmy and unsatisfying to me and most of us in the forum- instead as my paper for FQXI proposes I believe reality is better described by events, and specifically closed action cycles in time. This is not solipsism. It does not mean there is nothing external. It means the next step in our world view is to replace objects and probabilities with interacting events. 

And specifically for your paper it means space is no longer an independent objective thing out there but rather a creation that explains certain repetitive sensations and therefore Lorenz is right there is a fundamental background, and Einstein is right every coordinate frame defines it own space. But neither of them have made the next step. That we are all measuring through our coordinate frames and learned theories that continue to evolve.

hope this helps it certainly helps me to try to find the words that explain Plato's cave idea in modern terms.

wolf 

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/21/2018 1:57 PM, Chip Akins wrote:

Hi Wolf

But we do have physical explanation for the distortion of an image by a non-uniform convex lens. The refractive properties of the lens are well known and documented, so that we can accurately predict the distortion a particular lens will cause.

While we are made of material molecules, atoms, and particles, which have an electromagnetic set of characteristics, and that means that our perceptions are based on our physical makeup, and our abilities to sense certain electromagnetic interactions, the fundamental reality that exists in the universe can continue to exist without any one of us, or all of us.

The evidence indicates that it is not only illogical but extremely arrogant to assume otherwise. Our consciousness does not create material objects in the universe, but it does allow us to sense and interpret what we sense in various, sometimes erroneous, ways. There are many ways for us to test this hypothesis, and we actually test it many times each day. 

Just my two cents, and my 5 senses. Opinion and tangible physical mechanisms respectively.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:53 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] To realists out there

To all:

I just submitted an essay contest to FQXI that is a short version of the physics of the observer I am working on. One of the responses claims I am completely off the mark and was signed "realist" 

Some of you may have the same "realist" inclinations so think of this simple experiment:

Consider any object lens image setup.

Bend the image screen and you will see the image is distorted, but no such distortion changes the object.

Now do the same thing but use your eye as the lens image part of the setup.

Close one eye. With the other focus on an object - say a coffee cup on the desk 1 meter away. Now push the open eye from the side with your finger. This bends the retina and also moves or distorts the coffee cup.

There is no physical mechanism in our current science that accounts for such a distortion of the coffee cup if the coffee cup you see is an independent object.

Conclusion: Neither the coffee cup nor anything we see in our daily environment is an independent objective reality. We are living in an interpretation of sensor interactions that is implemented by a physics inside the observer. Developing and defining this physics and straightening out the errors that have crept into our current physics due to the assumption that reality is the way we see it is the the the challenge confronting science today 

If you want to look at the paper click on

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043

If you want to rate it it might help me win, never know.

Thanks

Wolf

-- 

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com

<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">

Click here to unsubscribe

</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180122/eaa03c81/attachment.html>