[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Krimel]

John,

Well of course you can make the case that the retina does indeed exist in 3D
not only as the interior surface of a sphere but because even as a film of
neurons it has depth. To conceive of the retina as a 2D surface we have to
"idealize" it. By making it an ideal form we strip aside all of the nasty
irregularity of the "real" world and just focus on what is essential. This
is the Platonic move after all.

I have to rush through this as I am being told I have to leave "Right Now."
But the sense of touch is really about four separate senses which include
balance heat pressure and so forth. All of the nerves that relay this kind
of information to us are arrayed in 3D space  throughout our bodies. They
are processed in parallel, which I think is quite different than what
happens on the retina.

Krimel




-----Original Message-----
From: John Carl [mailto:ridgecoyote at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:57 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Levels in electronic computers

Thanks Krimel,  This is helpful.  One question tho,

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> Magnus, Arlo, Andy, Ian and Whoever;
>
> I think there is an important issue Magnus is missing at least with
respect
> to fractal boundaries. One of the major points Mandelbrot was making is
> that
> dimensions themselves are not discrete. "Fractal" is actually a made up
> word
> contracted from fractional dimensionality. I think it was Mandelbrot who
> used an example of this similar to your cube example. He said imagine a
> point that when you zoom in on it turns out to be the end of a strand of
> yarn which twists into a circle and then balls up into a sphere. The
object
> under observation is not zero, one two or three dimensional is has a
> fractional dimensional value.
>
> Also, in your example, in order to shift position, in order to see the
> square as a cube, you have to be able to pan over to a vantage point where
> the difference is detectable. Thus in order to perceive things in three
> dimensions you have to exist in four.
>
> But from an ontological standpoint the only sense we have that actually
> gives us direct experience of three dimensions is touch. Constructing 3D
> from sight is always a perceptual process as the information is always
> presented to us on the 2D surface of our retinas.
>
>

How is the surface of our finger skin any different than the sensory
perception of our eyes?  Seems to me that both surfaces embedded with nerves
have to be interpreted by the brain.  "Panning" (perception over time) is
necessary for both.


Take care,

 Whoever
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/md/archives.html