Posted by Reilly Atkinson on June 11, 1999 at 21:16:09:

In Reply to: Good philosophical ontology? posted by ron dw on June 09, 1999 at 09:19:25:

Mr. de Weijze -- I think in some things we shall never agree; some of it is in our language. To wit: I haven't a clue as to what a contracted perception is, nor as to what a contracted recollected perception is. And by what means is such a beast kept virtual, whatever virtual is?

I quite possibly mislead you about Lorentz transformations. It is a mapping that relates perceptions of time and space (duration, length, simultaneity) between "observers". It helps to describe the space-time structure in which we all operate. However, in the scientific studies of perception, the Lorentz transformation plays no role at all.

The activation of memory by current stimulii is, under the name of associative memory, the focus of much research by cognitive scientists and neurophysiologists. There are great issues still to be resolved -- the physical mechanisms of sight are well understood, as are some of the neural networks involved.

Nonetheless, a scientifically based explanation of the experience of seeing is a long way off. Scientists being the contentious bunch that they are, are split ove the possiblilty of developing such an explanation. Most of the arguments over this issue revolve about conciousness - what is it, how can it be explained, if at all. Science leaves plenty of room for the mysteries of existence.

Regards
Reilly Atkinson

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Good philosophical ontology? ron dw 09:56:27 6/13/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: