(Vision as reflection)
It is permanent side effect that comes naturally from the function of perception that things appear to be external. The eye reflects light it derives from the object.
What is being reflected by the eye is the form of the matter. This is reflected and produced as an external scope to the extent of the limit of vision. So far as the eye is an evolutionary product, it is a natural achievement of primal objects of nature like crystals and pearls. The eye is a synthesis result of crystal pearl.
The geometry of crystal and eye are the same. This is one exhibition of a reiteration in nature which is the repetition of the same form into different unrelated objects. But “unrelated” in this context does not mean that both objects of different quantitive measures do not share the same essential nature, but rather they are only unrelated by being in contradistinction to their relation, in other words, the relation itself stands independently from each component that makes it up, and when the variables make it up, only then, they can say that they are unrelated as varying conceptions of the same substance.
The eye and crystal share the same basic geometry because this is able to capture every angle of dimensions. It is universal geometry of every dimension and the eye mimics this so as to replicate an exact external copy of the object. The eye reflects light very similarly to a crystal because it uses a process of retraction of light onto one of its most outer extreme points constituting its circumference, so that can in-turn reflect back onto the reflection of light which is already to weak to pick out as a single by the eye. The eye is blurry when something it’s in the way, when washing your face you see as if there is water between what your eye picks out as light, and how your mind interprets that light into a definite kind of form representing a variable object.
Like a finger prints the lens exhibits the necessary print that captures the geometry to pick out every angle of a light beam or that to pick out every possible angle that a light beam can disclose. For perception the size of the object holds with it a conception reciprocal in size until the extent of the vision is reached. The eye like a beam uses a focus method, the focal point, which is a signal produced by the nerves of the eye concentrating the refractions of its muscles and spiting out a ray of electrons through the central nervous system and into the brain carrying a bundle of all sides of the object being caught.
The eye “sucks” in these discrete “quanta” beams of light into the brain via an electrical system, I.e., nervous system . The brain receives these variable degrees of rays constantly and is keeping up with the organization of them into the static and particular image of the object directly perceived by the sensible organ. The mind us always ahead of the eye in forming a coherent picture for the observer to understand, but the eye is faster in catching the amount of light that contains and holds the necessary information that is to be unfolded and interpreted by the brain. The eye organ and brain organ and in a constant play of catch up with each other where one is faster in providing the material, and the other is faster in forming that into a conception.
The problem is that perception provides an external reflection. This does not concern the accuracy of vision in deriving the object because it is as accurate as the objects naturally can be because the geometry is matched with that of the object. The object however is a scope for vision between the actual geometry of the object and that captured by perception, yet perception for efficient reasons only captures the object as one thing and not the spectrum that it is. This is because vision captures the object as accurately as possible but the way it captures it is the problem. In reality there is no external objects but only made so by the function of vision.
The world and the objects in themselves are only internal entities. Vision so far as an evolutionary advancement is capacity to operate externally within a completely disclosed internal system. Inside the internal system, perception externalizes objects this is because the very function of vision is to distinguish and differentiate like all other sensations do. That is the nature of sensation as function of the understanding so that for example, the organism does not bump into things, vision captures a certain amount of distance between the tree and the man, so that he can simply walk around it, while a blind person may bump into it.
Focal point focus
If you try the exercise of meditation known as focal point focus, where you bring an object right before your eyes and try to look as furthest as possible within it, not at it. You have to look not as the eye normally sees it, by looking at it, but try to look within the object. The idea is to look as furthest into the object as possible until eventually the eye begins to look within the light that travels from the eye to the brain. In this light there is the reflection of the moment itself. The moment is reflected from the fabric of spacetime onto that light and consumed within through the eye into the brain where an experience is being underplay.
This powerful and ancient technique of focus allows the self-consciousness aspect of the human mind, just for a momentary period of time, to witness the infinite duration of the ongoing continuum of time. Just like a river passing along all objects within it towards a definite direction, so to time as being guided by a variation of observers determines it into a definite direction. In one aspect of nature this process is determined, in the other side of nature, the abstract side, this process is a determination, an action and not just a sustenance for it, or a reaction to it, but a subsistence of actively being itself.
The internet for example is a future platform of spacetime which can allow a full time access of self-conscious reason to look at the fabric of itself.
When there is no duration between moments, the duration being the value of time itself, i.e., duration requires that a certain distance of space covered in order for a thing to transform, take that distance away, and all you have are distinct discrete moments of time, flickering right one after another, capturing different moments of what is suppose to be a continuous process. However without space you do not experience the process as continuous, in the sense that there is a continuous dimension within the scene being disclosed by the moment, but rather moments loose the continuity after one another, and start to appear one after another without any intermediary duration, it just happen, an event just appears right after another, like a scene in a movie cutting to the next.
In perception, Consciousness instead of merely having forms of reason constantly appearing and disappearing in thought, it grabs a hold of each and discloses that within a spatial continuum where the moments seem to lead into each other, e.g., I fell down because I slipped. Within this space two moments are not simultaneously seen at the same time and so a moment does not exclude one from an other. The eye is a complex sphere made out of tiny nuclei of elongated fibre cells, each of these capture a dimension from the object directly perceived, like an angle of it, almost like a pixel, each capturing with a certain part of the whole, and the brain associates these together into a final resolution, which appears to be the same objects moving places and changing its shape while remaining the same identity. However this general picture of the object directly perceived is itself disclosed by a reference frame. This reference frame is the two-dimensional framework of spacetime. Our total experience of reality is three-dimensional, but this is not fundamentally the case because experience mentally, and not just sensibly (sensations), is only 2-dimensional. A 2-dimensional reference frame is more fundamental than 3-dimensional
2-dimensional
The first and second dimensions are not more primary in being more primitive or less developed dimensions, but rather they are the more advanced dimensions. Dimensions like the second and especially the first are the way consciousness can manoeuvre within the infinite scale of spacetime. They are more fundamental than the 3-dimension in being more advanced and complicated in this sense of disclosing more. Every dimension after the first, is more primal in being more finite, limited and therefore more certain of a specific entity. Finite in this sense does not mean simple. The further away a dimension is away from the value of one, the more finite it is, by picking out more finite details it picks out from a finite conception of a limited thing.
1 is the true value of infinity, coming closest to 0 which is the real value of infinity because it is an innumerable value, 1 is the first infinity because every number is fundamentally a 1, and the higher the numbers go after 1, the higher dimensional complexity they capture the combinations of infinity. The 10th dimension for example is finite in being a very complicated set of variables limited to a certain type of relation, the relation is finite because it is limited, even if that limitation is a very complex set of relations. When we add an exponential value to the 10th dimension and make that into the 100th, 1000th, 10000th, 100000th, 1000000th, etc., these are all to the power of 1: Any number raised to the power of one equals the number itself. Any number raised to the power of zero, except zero, equals one. This multiplication rule tells us that we can simply add the exponents when multiplying two powers with the same base. The power of 1 takes any number and multiply that with itself.
A second dimension is the pure reference frame disclosing the moment where a 3rd dimensional point of view can take place. A 3rd dimension is entering into the moment of the scene disclosed by the second so as to be identical with it and therefore partake within the moment — as commonly said “being one with the moment” or “how to live in the present”.
3-dimensional you are in the finite moment itself, can go in every direction within the confined discloser of the reference frame, or period of time. While the 2nd-dimension is the actual disclosure of the moment itself in a series of other moments forming the sequence of time. The first-dimension is that entire sequence itself as a single point.
The first dimension is the most interesting because it does not have any specific form because at that level the conception looses any discernible form in which it can pick out anything. The first dimension is not discernible not because there is too many things happening within it, which could be the case, but also that the disclosure of the dimension does not disclose anything at all. The conception is not one with the object being conceived, and so the conception ventured off into one way, while the objects for it, remains in one place to be conceivable, and both of these become disclosed within a third conception which views them as venturing off from each other.
When a point becomes so far away, another point comes to disclose that reference frame which views the point as far away.
The first dimension is the duration itself, meaning the “entrance” into any dimension. In order for there to be a duration there has to be an entrance at one point and than a time being towards the exists towards another point.
This is what stands between the eye and the brain for example, in the phenomenological sense it is a light ray, which gets reflected on the light from the object capturing each details of its form.
Perception escapes uncertainty
When we say that the end is already present in the beginning the difficulty arises when we ask what is the point of the advance? Why is there process of recollection? What is the point of experience? The answer relates to the function of consciousness which is to achieve certainty, knowledge of itself. To say that everything already exists does not mean that everything is already in a certain way of existing. The point of experience, going through the process, is by way of achieving certain way of being, which in the absolute state of infinite flux is to go through the indefinite by having knowledge of it. There is psychic comfort in the evolutionary development of perception because the sensible faculties on some level escape the indeterminate constant flux of thought, and rest the focus of consciousness on a certain abstraction of infinity.
Vision as reflection of mind
The presupposition in the onset is that mind does not come after the individual but rather the individual comes after mind. In other words the organism is adapting to its mind along side it’s environment.
What is the vision reflection of? The lens of the eye being transparent reflects externally the internal operations of the mind. For the eye is technically looking into the brain. It does so indirectly only insofar as it makes it appear as outside. But the world perceived by vision is really the same world of the mind, for it is a reflection of it. (Alan watts YouTube be like water 19:00) The mind is not blank it is the world of details perceived, it is the eye that is blank, transparent, in order for it to reflect the details of the mind. We become aware of the eye as an object when it is ill, we see spots.
Human perception and its function as an organ of the understanding is an example of a natural manifestation of self-consciousness. When an eye sees an objects, it delivers that object as an inverted image to the brain so that the mind has to reinsures that image to its natural form as first conceived.
An ant for example does not see in this manner, instead an ant does not differentiate itself from what it sees but is fully emerged in what it sees as identical with itself, it sees itself as the path it is maneuvering on such that it is the consciousness of the path itself, the path being the non-conscious element in the experience. We see unlike human perception which sees an object as an external entity, sees the object in its own individuality, insects like ants perceive themselves as internalized in the object they perceive such that they are internal in the object.
What we divide as a fundamental difference between organism and environment is itself a result of the understanding and the phenomenon of our self-consciousness differentiating the capacity to observe from the object. In truth the organism is the conscious component and the environment is the non-consciousness, both of which are the same spectrum from the internal point of view of their relation.
The perception of the ant is based on the level of its understanding, it’s not that it sees less or more of the object, although that could be the case also, but that what it sees does not involve the connections the human mind can apprehend, however the human mind when observing complex systems also operates on the same level of abstraction as the ant does in relation to environments humans can easily apprehend. For example, when an ant ends up on the sink of your washroom, the ant does not realize the danger it is facing because from its perception, it sees a flat smooth surface that is the sink, and perhaps it may see the water tap but to it that water tap is an arbitrary object, it does not realize it is standing on the surface of a sink which at any second will be flooded with water coming from the tab , in other words, it does not make the connections because those are outside the scope of its reality, so from it’s point of view, if it dies from the water tap, that is a natural event.
(Add to insects eyes being many lenses)
(Add to rapid eye movements scanning the nerve leading to brain)
Rapid eye movement, the constant movement of the eye acts like a scanning mechanism that infinitesimally alternates between the different frames of reference disclosing certain objects within the scope of sight. (Add cells of the eye, retina)
one macro eye is millions of micro eyes, the cells of an eye all operate expressing the general function of sight that is the reason of their relation, this does not mean that the cells of the eye are all able to see like the eye that consists of them but the cells conceive elements like colour, shape etc. That constitute the conceptions for sight. for example in the retina
Cone cells, or cones, are of three types of photoreceptor cells. They are responsible for color vision and functionbest in relatively bright light, as opposed to rod cells, which work better in dim light.
The cells in your eyes have different shapes. Rod-shaped cells enable you to see shapes while cone-shaped cells let you see colours.
For example insects eye portray a less refined and more primal version of the eye which shows it more as a differentiated entity of more minuscule versions.
Insects are evolved to perceive simultaneous possible events happening instantaneously. This means nothing else than that they see a set of actions happening all at ones like someone moving, sitting falling running, walking at the same time.
A mosquito has two eyes only. Though there are hundreds of lenses in one eye. That’s why they are called compound eyes. Compound eyes are better than simple eyes (eyes having a single lens like ours) at detecting motion, though they are weaker in focusing and differentiating textures and shapes. The vision of dragon fly is precisely relevant experience in spacetime. The size of insects is microscopic compared to larger mammals like human. Their minute size enables them to move in space at a different time frame than larger mammals. If for example an insect is the same size as a human their movements would defies laws of nature. If it takes a certain amount of time of an object with a certain amount of weight to move from position A to position B.
Dragonfly eyes are made of tens of thousands of individual light sensors.” Dragonflies can see in all directions at the same time. That’s one of many advantages of a compound eye; you can wrap it around your head..The spherical field of vision means that dragonflies are still watching you after they have flown by….If you swing at them while they are approaching they’ll usually see the net coming and easily avoid it.”
Each ommatidium is a functioning eye in itself, and thousands of them together create a broad field of vision for the fly. Flies have 5 eyes—a pair of large compound eyes and a triangle of threelittle simple eyes called ocelli on the “forehead” between the compound eyes.
Digger wasp
Simple Eyes of Ectemnius (digger wasp) with condensation
(evolution adapting to the discrete measure of possible events happening simultaneously)
Its interesting that “simple eyes” are evolutionary more advanced than compound eyes because we normally associate a simple categorization of a thing as prior and more primal than compound. But this is not the same to say that compound is more developed than simple. The term “simple” is logical predicate of compound because it means any thing that has no proper parts. The simple body predicates the compound not because the latter by the fact of having parts is part of the former having no parts. Not merely due to the logic that because a thing has parts it must by its nature therefore be a part and therefore as part it is secondary to that which having no part and is simple with itself is primary.
What it means for a body to have proper parts has nothing to do with the actual body having attributes because we first have to ask what it means for a variety of differences to come together into the same whole to form yet a single difference distinct from the differences constituting it? What it means for a relation of different things to form one single thing is not explained by the perception of a single body having different parts that can be distinguished out from each other because we cannot ascertain that a single body has different parts just by perceiving it, the mere perception of a body exhibits it as a continuous whole where the boundary of one thing has no clear distinction from an other, as they all make up the body we see as one and the same, to ascertain that an identical body exhibits differing parts is a conclusion deduced in the abstract when the body is out of sight or when we “think” about the body after looking a it. even while looking at it, is still after the fact of perceiving it because the brain is registering the object as it passes in time before the mind. Compound body having parts is an abstraction of distinctions disclosed by conception. Sometimes the atom is used as example of simple body because it is indivisible. yet the categorization into simple and compound , the names simple suggests to have a more fundamental place than compound while “compound” suggests to be more complicated than simple. But in evolution we see the opposite case in that compound bodies are evolving towards simple forms, like the eye.
Compound becomes simple because it can be discernible into parts whereas simple is complex because it is the whole whose parts must be understood. The notion that a simple form is more complex than a compound one confronts us with epistemological difficulties.
It is important not to merely adopt the notion of truth as negative because every fact is then derived as a limit within which its form of consciousness is trapped within. But how nevertheless science moves towards the ascertainment of other facts means that a limit is a power for determination. For example the general critique of American culture granted as it may be begins off by saying that American society does not live by truth as opposed to other cultures who are more truthful because of the cruder ways, that is the same to say that a chimp is more truthful than a human because he is more primitive and simple by nature, the simplicity is taken as more truthful than the complexity. But vice versa it would be unsound to say that a caveman stone is more truthful than an iPhone given the difference of complexity between each form of technology. The idea that the simpler version is more truthful than the complex one is an epistemological fallacy based on the fact that because the simpler can be understood more than the complex, it is argued as the more truthful. A classic epistemological mistake but only insofar as being inconclusive because it does not alleviate the doubt it purports to disway.
There is no difference between something conceiving itself and being conceived by something other because that continuity constitutes the same power of conception only the perspective changes and the change in the perspective constitutes a change in the experience and expression of that experience as an object. When you perceive some object your experiencing how that object conceives itself, how it conceived itself is the same as how you conceive it . Distance for example, from the first perspective having distance away from something else or from third perspective looking onto two things distance from each other, space constitutes the measure of distance in either forms of conception.
(Add living surviving here)
When an organism line shark changes its environment by migrating to a different one it witnesses features unique in those environments that it was not previously exposed to which it sublates into the conception of itself and those become scripted physical characteristics.
The rapid movement of the eye constantly alternating between the different references disclosing particular objects within them filters out the conception of the object by replacing it with a perception. In perception the void which discloses the object making it a distinct conception from an other does not appear as part of the objects. The conception of the object is a void and so it cannot be itself conceived. What is conceived is the content of the conception, these are the activities of experiences forming objects. Sensations and specifically Perceptions are particular evolutionary states of conception generally which has developed in such a way where the conception itself became a means for conceiving other objects. In other words the capacity for conception manifolds into objects conceiving other objects. this is not unique for perception because we already see that in the different sense of the word conception is generation like self reproducing organisms are objects that conceive a perpetuating of themselves as objects. But perception is unique because it is a conception in the form of an object that conceives others in their respective form as objects and it does not conceive itself as perpetuating a production of itself into further objects like in the form of generation.
When perception overlooks the conception disclosing the object and goes directly into conceiving the content of the conception, i,e. Objects, what it must first do is actively avoid the void between each thing and this going back and forth movement hurdling over the void makes it seem that there is the same continuity between discrete entities. Our common sensations find difficulty the idea that its objects are abstractions from a more fundamental faculties of reason,
It is often stated that perception observes generalities. A given object perceived in the environment is really an abstraction of the environment generally in a particular way. Any particular object is a generality because implicate in it are not necessarily perceived details. We do not even need our microscopic empirical observations to confirm this but its evidence The void acts as the generality because when it is taken out from the relation between objects made distinct by it, objects appear to be come into contact with each other from their own volition within a general framework they all share their interactions within. The void itself cannot be perceived but its remanence is present as a distortion at the boundary where one object lies and an other begins.
Our eyes have filters out this distraction caused by an inconceivable void at the macroscopic level of magnitude which within the sensible organisms operates, but at a greater magnitude like what we observer in space, there is an obvious warping in spacetime between terrestrial bodies we now know is caused by black holes. But this effect is not extraterritorial but present even in objects on earth except our eyes at this level has adapted to filter such a distortion out for obvious efficient purposes.
Perception is an organizing mechanism
perceiving is determined by the understanding. Perception alone without the understanding does not indicate what the nature of object is but only that there is some object because sight has evolved as a mechanism of the understanding, the content of its perception all indicate what things are. Perception alone forms a continuity between different conception so as to make the relation of the objects in the conception logically understandable. Another aspect of the understanding is that it is built into the very object of sensation. The elements form the organ of sensation to experience them (add example of light as shaping the eye)
For example the perception of some object later discerned as cat, perception may pick out an object but that does not distinguish an understanding of what that object is, only that it is an object and it may have some role. sensations are mediums for the apperception of the understanding and they operate by reversing the abstract relation of conception and object. Instead of seeing the object disclosed by the conception, they see the conception as part of the object such that what is before it is only an object to be focused on. This is done by assimilating the idea of an object in a body it has received the idea from.
This is the active role of perception and not what we normally assume as the passive seeing of thing as they enter our frame of sight. (15;15:00) on some level the eye is the organ of sight which naturally is structured for apperception, (add to vision as image reflection to reflect outwards image externally) but vision so far as the bare structure of apperception does not by this function alone produce understanding (add to example of cat seeing above)
Conjunction of the senses
(Add to decoherence to make the point that the decoherence of the senses is that they are in coherent state but the coherent state being their conception is decoherence (?) Add to whitehead when you see something you do not necessarily smell it, there is disorientation of the senses. Space and time causes disorientation in the sense so that when you see something you do not necessarily smell it however this is only because the sense organs perceive varies but not what they perceive, which is really the point whitehead makes. The sense organs perceive different wave lengths of things, hearing sound wave is different than light, so it seems as there is discontinuity of temporal extension between what you see and what you hear, you see something before hear it or you hear something after you see it. However so far as what the sense organs conceive exhibits no break in the way the information is distributed. The different forms are present all at once. When you look at someone you also smell them, all forms of information from the same entity is distributed simultaneously which does not mean they are received all at once. The breakage of the senses is in the reception of the experience. (Add discrete and continuous Hegel)
The object of sensation is disclosed by perception, objects are contained within the extent of vision. Vision is disclosed by the mind, therefore the objects of perception are contained within the mind. We can also say that the mind is contained within nature as an organism with a brain but this is quite incorrect because there is no way of knowing that without a nature of mind to know that. To be in nature, nature as a circumstance is predicated by the nature as capacity
Receiving the information comes in different forms but the information provided comes all the same at once, in order to have different forms everything already has to be there at once. (Add this to decoherence below) the conjuncture of the senses and their place of origination is the conception disclosing them. The conception of the senses is their abstractive set, the mental capacity of reason, the idea. (Add to below past idea future) The senses originate from the abstract idea of the object, which is undifferentiated and this is the synthetical aspect of mind. There is a particular idea extended to a pure conception. The senses are analytical because they differentiate objects within this pure conception but their pure conception is naturally synthetical as it discloses their differences (add here absolute pure quantity). In modern science synthetical knowledge is acquainted with as coming after or following analytical knowledge. However analytical knowledge is synthetical insofar as it maintains the relation of concepts as differentiated from each other. Synthetical knowledge is organically foundational to the sensible organs of the understanding because it concerns the objects of sensation related in pure conception.
The mental capacity of a pure conception of things, which is the undifferentiated platform where different things operate, is the first kind of synthetical knowledge,
vision is more differentiated than sound. Sound is more undifferentiated than vision because when you see something you can differentiate it from something else because there are various variables picked out by sight like colour, along side with shape, texture etc, but hearing only picks up variety of the same variable, like volume, base, depth etc. When not looking at something you can hear different things and identify the sounds to objects however objects discernible by sound are still undifferentiated wavelengths whereas in vision things are particle states of shape.
The general conductor of all the senses in the pure physical undifferentiated way is touch, or more generally, contact. Contact is the first undifferentiated sensation. Contact is the natural physical form of the indivisibility of logical relations. Contact is the conception of thought consisting of indivisible logical relation. Con-t-act which is the action of contraries constitutes the undifferentiated state of unity known as touch, everything is always in a state of touch ( add to geometry touch as tangent)
Contact for example is demonstrated by the nature of magnetism. Earths magnetic field for example is what maintains all its properties intact and under the same general gravitation