[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

Krimel,

Sorry you have to rush off.  Lu's been in town for a day and a night,
leaving me free to tap away without considering my other pressing chores.
Mu-ha-ha-ah.

I'm following Ellul in thinking  there is a hugely important  difference in
our sensory apparatus and what kinds of mentation they produce or influence.

 Eyes vs touch is one I haven't considered as deeply as eyes vs. ears, but
even though she's not standing here tugging me physically, that I can feel,
I'm "picturing" the look on her face when she "sees" I'm not working on
Cassi's room, by dillettantin' around with you guys, and I feel I gotta go
too.

Not only that, I think I'm probably over my limit for the month.

J


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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
>