Perception, knowledge, isomorphism, symmetry

[GrowingSmaller]

My pet idea is that perception is isomorphic to the outside world, possibly even symmetrical. That is a signal (lightwaves) conserves some of the features of the distal stimulus / outside object (shape and colour in visible objects), and this signal is taken in by the sense organs eg. eyes (transformed physicaslly from lightwaves to elecrobiological) whilst important properties of (information about) the signal are conserved only represented in a new medium.

Would this make the brain and perception symmetrical to the stimulus as identical features are present in both domains? Transformed mathematically onto a new 'computational topology' of neuroarchitecture? What would the axis of symmetry be (hard question), and what type of symmetry would it be (for example is there symmetry between a computer programme running in a computer drive and a game being played out on a screen), if this were true? If not symmetrical, isomorphic. Help!!!

The problem is I am just a layman playing with technical jargon I am not sure how to use. What is a "pet" again?

 

[juvenissun]

 

[BrianOnEarth]

My pet idea is that perception is isomorphic to the outside world, possibly even symmetrical. That is a signal (lightwaves) conserves some of the features of the distal stimulus / outside object (shape and colour in visible objects), and this signal is taken in by the sense organs eg. eyes (transformed physicaslly from lightwaves to elecrobiological) whilst important properties of (information about) the signal are conserved only represented in a new medium.

Would this make the brain and perception symmetrical to the stimulus as identical features are present in both domains? Transformed mathematically onto a new 'computational topology' of neuroarchitecture? What would the axis of symmetry be (hard question), and what type of symmetry would it be (for example is there symmetry between a computer programme running in a computer drive and a game being played out on a screen), if this were true? If not symmetrical, isomorphic. Help!!!

The problem is I am just a layman playing with technical jargon I am not sure how to use. What is a "pet" again?

I have no idea what your pet idea is. Are you a native English speaker? You seem to be using the word "symmetrical" in a way I am unfamiliar with. Would you restate using different words? Thx.

 

[AV1611VET]

My pet idea is that perception is isomorphic to the outside world, possibly even symmetrical.

Are you implying that light waves act as carrier waves for information propagation; and that, once it strikes the optic nerve, transmits this information -- (in the form of universal memes) -- to the brain, unlocking esoteric information within?

If so, I disagree.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

If so, I disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

[shrugs] Sounded good to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My pet idea is that perception is isomorphic to the outside world, possibly even symmetrical. That is a signal (lightwaves) conserves some of the features of the distal stimulus / outside object (shape and colour in visible objects), and this signal is taken in by the sense organs eg. eyes (transformed physicaslly from lightwaves to elecrobiological) whilst important properties of (information about) the signal are conserved only represented in a new medium.

Would this make the brain and perception symmetrical to the stimulus as identical features are present in both domains? Transformed mathematically onto a new 'computational topology' of neuroarchitecture? What would the axis of symmetry be (hard question), and what type of symmetry would it be (for example is there symmetry between a computer programme running in a computer drive and a game being played out on a screen), if this were true? If not symmetrical, isomorphic. Help!!!

The problem is I am just a layman playing with technical jargon I am not sure how to use. What is a "pet" again?

I didn't quite understand what you meant. The meaning that I extracted from the above text is as follows: you are suggesting that perception preserves the complete quality of the stimulus as it really is in the world. Or put otherwise, that perception is a mirror image of that which it perceives, only in a different medium or format? Apologies if I've entirely misunderstood what you've said. If so, a clarification remark would be appreciated.

If I haven't misunderstood, then (at least intuitively) I feel compelled to disagree. My disagreement, however, might depend on how one defines 'perception' and how it is distinguished from 'sensation'. I once attended an interesting lecture where the lecturer laboured one particular point: once a stimulus is detected (in the visual modality, but I guess you could say the same for the others), and as soon as it passes from receptor (or ganglion cell) to the next cell in the sequence, it looses all contact with the outside world. Put otherwise, the 'image' (can we even call it an image at this early stage?) looses all contact with the 'outside' as soon as it passes from the first cell that detects it. For the image to be a replica of the stimulus (or completely 'symmetrical' to it), we'd have to assume that even though it has lost contact with the outside world from there on in, the system has done nothing to edit the image, or that there are no artefacts resulting from the processing that has occurred between detection and conscious awareness.

 

[Lillen]

The thing about rhetorics - As a speaker you need to adept to the people hearing the speech. So if i speak with senior citizens i need to walk up the stairs abit, if i speak to teenagers i need to walk down the stairs a bit.

I agree with the Humanist, explain in easier words (i am limited with my knowledge in english)

Isn't the frequency of the photon the information it carry!? I believe that humans are limited in perception of the world, by our language. For instance there are native american languages that only have three colours in their language. Green to braun, red to yellow (i think) and black to skyblue. Does this mean that green is only a nyance to braun to them? Do these indians only percives green and braun as the same colours but only as a nyance to eachother? In that case our language should be to the new media from the photons infomation. And thus parallell.

If you are using this in computing artificial intelligence, you are limited to the computers understanding of the programming language. You need to expand more phrases to the computers logical reasoning. Such as commands as "what if", "almost", And "always/never" etc.

Todays machines are limited to to C++ and modern programming languages. And will be so until the comptuer undestand our samantics. And also 64 bit binarycode still just explain off and on.

 

[juvenissun]

I was not laughing at you. I am overwhelmed by what you said. If you could simply pick up one sentence from the OP, it would well be a full topic for discussion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ty for your responses.

I didn't quite understand what you meant. The meaning that I extracted from the above text is as follows: you are suggesting that perception preserves the complete quality of the stimulus as it really is in the world. Or put otherwise, that perception is a mirror image of that which it perceives, only in a different medium or format? Apologies if I've entirely misunderstood what you've said. If so, a clarification remark would be appreciated.

Sorry for being difficult to understand, but you have the basic idea. I am basing my thoughts on the idea that information in the retina preserves aspects of the light (eg shape of green patch), and then the brain preserves this information during processsing.

If I haven't misunderstood, then (at least intuitively) I feel compelled to disagree. My disagreement, however, might depend on how one defines 'perception' and how it is distinguished from 'sensation'.

I was using the term "perception" loosely, on the premise that we are not conscious of sensation, but are conscious of perception, and the objective that I wanted to talk about the experienced phenomenal world. Ie the relation of the inside to the outside.

I once attended an interesting lecture where the lecturer laboured one particular point: once a stimulus is detected (in the visual modality, but I guess you could say the same for the others), and as soon as it passes from receptor (or ganglion cell) to the next cell in the sequence, it looses all contact with the outside world. Put otherwise, the 'image' (can we even call it an image at this early stage?) looses all contact with the 'outside' as soon as it passes from the first cell that detects it.

Are you saying that activity in the visual cortex does not resemble activity on the retina?

For the image to be a replica of the stimulus (or completely 'symmetrical' to it), we'd have to assume that even though it has lost contact with the outside world from there on in, the system has done nothing to edit the image, or that there are no artefacts resulting from the processing that has occurred between detection and conscious awareness.

I think I understand that the image in the visual cortex, or the eventual neural correlates of consciousness, is not spatially identical to the image in the retina. It has been through some processing, for example I believe cues of depth perception in the primary neural signals are recognised and the and the latter signals are organised in a way that reflects this.

So why should I say they could be symmetrical, if the NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) do not spatially exactly map on the the retinal images? Well, it is just that although I see the processing as modified or interpreted according to certain laws, there possibly remains sort of "transformed symmetry".

The best analogy I can thingk of the projection of an image onto first a flat screen and secondly onto a bumpy screen. The first image will have symmetry with the slide, everyone will agree. The second has "symmertry (does it?)" in my sense of the preservation of an image according to transformation rules of the new topology of the screen surface. Like with a hall of mirrors!!! Are distorted images not "symmetrical" to the undistorted in some sense of the word? If not, why is reflection of one sort (onto a plane surface) preferred to another (onto a curved surface) for the use of the term "symmetrical"?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Oxford English Minidictionary:
symmetry n. state of having parts that correspond in size, shape, and position on either side of a dividing line or round a centre.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Oxford English Minidictionary:
symmetry n. state of having parts that correspond in size, shape, and position on either side of a dividing line or round a centre.

Ty. See also Wikipedia on physical symmetry:

In physics, symmetry includes all features of a physical system that exhibit the property of symmetry—that is, under certain transformations, aspects of these systems are "unchanged", according to a particular observation. A symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is "preserved" under some change.
______

I think that I might be discussing discussing a form of topology (thanks mathworld):

Topology is the mathematical study of the properties that are preserved through deformations, twistings, and stretchings of objects. Tearing, however, is not allowed. A circle is topologically equivalent to an ellipse (into which it can be deformed by stretching) and a sphere is equivalent to an ellipsoid.

And also symmetry groups:

A symmetry group is a group of symmetry-preserving operations, i.e., rotations, reflections, and inversions (Arfken 1985, p. 245).

And hemeomorphism and isotopy:

The "objects" of topology are often formally defined as topological spaces. If two objects have the same topological properties, they are said to be homeomorphic (although, strictly speaking, properties that are not destroyed by stretching and distorting an object are really properties preserved by isotopy, not homeomorphism; isotopy has to do with distorting embedded objects, while homeomorphism is intrinsic).

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I'm still struggling with your first post:

My pet idea is that perception is isomorphic to the outside world, possibly even symmetrical.

Meaning perception of the outside world is unchanged from the outside world?

That is a signal (lightwaves) conserves some of the features of the distal stimulus / outside object (shape and colour in visible objects), and this signal is taken in by the sense organs eg. eyes (transformed physicaslly from lightwaves to elecrobiological) whilst important properties of (information about) the signal are conserved only represented in a new medium.

Ditto.

Would this make the brain and perception symmetrical to the stimulus as identical features are present in both domains?

What do you mean "as identical features are present". You mean if you look at a rock you have a rock in your head?

Transformed mathematically onto a new 'computational topology' of neuroarchitecture? What would the axis of symmetry be (hard question), and what type of symmetry would it be (for example is there symmetry between a computer programme running in a computer drive and a game being played out on a screen), if this were true? If not symmetrical, isomorphic. Help!!!

Help indeed. Try removing the unnecessary jargon and being clear about what you are asking. You don't get points here for pretentiousness.

The problem is I am just a layman playing with technical jargon I am not sure how to use. What is a "pet" again?

"A man has got to know his limitations." - Dirty Harry.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

See edit of last post. I have to use jargon terms because they are the best terms I know. I am not being pretentious, as I don't claim to understand.

What do you mean "as identical features are present". You mean if you look at a rock you have a rock in your head?

A rock in my head, I suppose.

Is the inner rock a "transformation" of the outer rock, etc.

Yes? I want to know is is there a proper name for the study of such transformation items. eg. "topology"?

If it's not a transformation, what is is it best described as in terms of maths and physics?

ETA: According to this paper "When a visual pattern is presented to the eye, a homeomorphic (continuously deformed) mapping of retinal imagery occurs in the visual cortex."


Also from here (pdf):

"

In his famous ‘Traite´ de l’Homme’, Rene´
Descartes brilliantly intuited that the brain integrates
the visual world information in a serial
mode, across a cascade of ordered central representations
[9]. His prediction was that, at each step
of processing along the central visual pathways,
the topography of the visual field representation
was homeomorphic to that defined at the retinal
level. Three centuries later, numerous studies,
among which the pioneering work of David Hubel
and Torsten Wiesel [17], showed that an anatomofunctional
embodiment of Descartes’ view of the
visual brain could be found in the retino-geniculocortical​

pathway."


Is there such a thing as "homeomorphic symmetry", eg. between the precept in the brain and the object in the world? I can only find one instance of "homeomorphic symmetry" in an an entire google search.

Oops jargon again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I was using the term "perception" loosely, on the premise that we are not conscious of sensation, but are conscious of perception, and the objective that I wanted to talk about the experienced phenomenal world. Ie the relation of the inside to the outside.
Are you saying that activity in the visual cortex does not resemble activity on the retina?

I think I understand that the image in the visual cortex, or the eventual neural correlates of consciousness, is not spatially identical to the image in the retina. It has been through some processing, for example I believe cues of depth perception in the primary neural signals are recognised and the and the latter signals are organised in a way that reflects this.

So why should I say they could be symmetrical, if the NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) do not spatially exactly map on the the retinal images? Well, it is just that although I see the processing as modified or interpreted according to certain laws, there possibly remains sort of "transformed symmetry".

The best analogy I can thingk of the projection of an image onto first a flat screen and secondly onto a bumpy screen. The first image will have symmetry with the slide, everyone will agree. The second has "symmertry (does it?)" in my sense of the preservation of an image according to transformation rules of the new topology of the screen surface. Like with a hall of mirrors!!! Are distorted images not "symmetrical" to the undistorted in some sense of the word? If not, why is reflection of one sort (onto a plane surface) preferred to another (onto a curved surface) for the use of the term "symmetrical"?

An interesting idea. Would it depend on how many 'distortions' the image goes through as it is processed? See the image on the retina itself (even before it reaches the retina) might be said to be distorted by the lens (and the limits of its capacity to resolve light). Once it reaches the visual receptors and passes onto the next cell in the circuit, it looses all contact with the 'outside' and everything is now left up to the system. By this stage, a lot of information has already been lost. Further down stream, however, in the lateral geniculate nucleus (if I recall correctly) there is somewhat of a selection and/or flirtation process that goes on and splits the 'image' (of which we are not yet conscious) into various parts based on certain features, which are then directed to different parts of the cortex. Studies from memory research suggest that we have a brief glimpse of the entire image (is it really whole though? I can't say), which rapidly decays. Attention allows for selection of the relevant attributes of the image for further conscious processing. But by this stage most of the 'information' has already been lost. What is preserved in memory is merely a shadow of the original proto-image.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

An interesting idea. Would it depend on how many 'distortions' the image goes through as it is processed? See the image on the retina itself (even before it reaches the retina) might be said to be distorted by the lens (and the limits of its capacity to resolve light). Once it reaches the visual receptors and passes onto the next cell in the circuit, it looses all contact with the 'outside' and everything is now left up to the system. By this stage, a lot of information has already been lost. Further down stream, however, in the lateral geniculate nucleus (if I recall correctly) there is somewhat of a selection and/or flirtation process that goes on and splits the 'image' (of which we are not yet conscious) into various parts based on certain features, which are then directed to different parts of the cortex. Studies from memory research suggest that we have a brief glimpse of the entire image (is it really whole though? I can't say), which rapidly decays. Attention allows for selection of the relevant attributes of the image for further conscious processing. But by this stage most of the 'information' has already been lost. What is preserved in memory is merely a shadow of the original proto-image.

There are also pathways to parts of the brain other than the cortex. Much visual processing is subconscious and some reactions to images are subconscious. Conscious processing is relatively slow and our reactions would be impaired if all responses were conscious.
There are, of course, lots of experiments that show how our conscious perception is often different from the stimulus that reaches our retinas. We subconsciously compensate for all sorts of stuff like shake and blind-spots and three dimensional interpretation and so on. We fill in "gaps" with memory of similar situations. There is only a small area of our field of view that has good detail but we consciously imagine that our whole field of view is uniform. People who wear "image inverting" glasses (they see everything upside down) will adapt after a few days and be able to see quite normally wearing the glasses.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

See edit of last post. I have to use jargon terms because they are the best terms I know. I am not being pretentious, as I don't claim to understand.

A rock in my head, I suppose.

Is the inner rock a "transformation" of the outer rock, etc.

Yes? I want to know is is there a proper name for the study of such transformation items. eg. "topology"?

If it's not a transformation, what is is it best described as in terms of maths and physics?

Are you asking how the brain represents external objects?
You may want to check out some modern neuroscience like Ramachandran's work. He has researched things like the brain's mapping of the body - it is not a scale representation but more of a homunculus.

Is there such a thing as "homeomorphic symmetry", eg. between the precept in the brain and the object in the world? I can only find one instance of "homeomorphic symmetry" in an an entire google search.

Try homomorphic.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I will read the last few posts later, but was thinking last night:

When I reach for something, the "metric" of the perceived world must be the same as the "metric" of the outside world, otherwise I would not grasp the actual object when I percieved it to be in a certain place. Therefore 'symmetry'...

Optical illusions could be perceptual asymmetries.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

An interesting idea. Would it depend on how many 'distortions' the image goes through as it is processed?

Aren't the "2D" retinal images from the left and right eyes compared and used as a basis of triangulation calculations in the brain?
See Wikipedia quote:

As the eyes of humans and other animals are in different positions on the head, they present different views simultaneously. This is the basis of stereopsis, the process by which the brain exploits the parallax due to the different views from the eye to gain depth perception and estimate distances to objects....

[snip]

...Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation,

Therefore it's possible that the "stretching" of the retinal images (to use a figure of speech) actually makes them more, not less reflective of the outside object. Thats because could be are 'transformed' from two 2D streams to a single 3D stream.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about propositional knowledge...? Could we loosely say that the statement "1 light year = 9.4605284 × 1015 metres" not only corresponds to reality, but reflects it (has symmetry)? Although that would be to stretch the meaning of the word.