[Case] "dimensionality is not a property of real things. It is a property of our understanding of real things."
[Ron] And this, my friend, is what I believe Micah is driving at but can not explain..why you have misinterpretations of Bohrs' explainations of quantum philosophy and see movies like "the secret" and "what the bleep,"...fat cats at seminars for 140 bucks a seat to tell Folks science has just made FACT that objective reality is a construct of the subject. In a manner of speaking it is but that's not what Niehls Bohr was saying.He was not saying Objective reality is'nt primary he was saying our perception of it is'nt. There is a difference. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Case Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value [Ron] Or are you performing a 2 dimentional activity of a 3-d experience? Our minds seem to be able to flop back and forth between 2-d and 3-d seemlessly. its what makes Eschers work seem real because It exploites this virtually unconscious ability. Is the human mind linear in a 3-d reality? Do we ever really exeperience 3-d reality or are we taking 2-d visual bitmaps and over laying Them on to a wire form that is part memory and part direct experience? Why was the roadrunner allways able to travel through the painted tunnel and the coyote Could not? I know, it's against the law of physics, but the roadrunner never studied law. [Case] Interesting, I think this jams together with the rounding error issue. The Ideal world of forms exists only in our heads. It is objective in that we can inter-subjectively understand and communicate about it but only when we understand that it does not really exist in nature. Like precise measurement, dimensionality is not a property of real things. It is a property of our understanding of real things. It is built into the nature of Maya. When the Hindus claim that the world is Maya or when the Buddhists claim that life is illusion they are referring to the confusion that occurs when we take our idealization to be the thing that is real. The Roadrunner can run into the tunnels and the coyote can't because they live in an ideal world with arbitrary laws of physics. Fortunately for us we do not. There is just this little problem of how much we wish to make of the difference between what these laws are and what we imagine them to be. {ron} Which brings me back to the [(x)+(x)] analogy with regard to Bohrs philosphy of complimentarity Of a limit having to be set by the subject to make use of any input. What we percieve is a result Of our minds built in limit(which seems to be variable). The mind simplifies experience so it is useful and storable like a computer Using the FAT 32 compression we recall an experience then inflate the 2-d memory to 3-d recalled experience. Likewise current experiences are subject to triggered Past recall to comprehend and identify it. The (x) factor of reality is constantly checked by The (x) factor of perception and wieghed against one another. (x)+(x) equalls quality? It would account for usually the most basic and accurate 2-d representations in art of a 3-d expierience Is often considered a highter quality of art. [Case] Here the real issue for me is how is sensation processed into perception? How is memory encoded and accessed. Not too many years ago a holographic model was proposed. Don't know what became of it but I haven't heard much about it lately. I like what I have heard so far about neural networks but we do tend to slap the metaphor de jur on mental processes, so who knows. I think a lot comes down to the fact that our ideal forms are beautiful because they are only as messy as we want them to be and it is not hard for most of us to imagine perfection. The real world tends to piss us off because it frequently does not play by our rules. I think that is one of the faults with what Wilber calls "the traditions." They invite us to give higher status to the world of the ideal. A classic example of this can be seen in the historic treatment of the story of Adam and Eve. The Jews, whose story this is, never saw the fall as an indictment of nature as evil. They did not think the actions of Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. The idea of "the fall" originates with Augustine and I suspect comes out of the influence of the Gnostics and Neo-Platonist who had decided that the real world is evil and co-opted the story to account for it. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
