Old Book: Chapter 6

Eye Rays

When I took my first physics course as a junior in high school, we studied the basics of optics. As a learning tool we used light ray diagrams in which always appeared an eye ball in profile to represent the observer.

(diagram)

We were supposed to draw lines with arrows to show the path of photons as they, for example, reflected off a mirror and into the eye. At first, much to my teacher's amusement, some of my classmates and I insisted on drawing these rays pointing in the wrong direction, originating in the eye and going to the object rather than the other way around.

(diagram)

I later learned that my classmates and I were making the most natural of assumptions. Euclid himself created this postulate for his Optics: "The rays which come from our eyes travel in straight lines." Euclid, my classmates and I all seemed to feel that vision is an active thing, more like reaching out to objects rather than passively receiving them. Our eyes aren't just passive portals but send out "feelers" into the surroundings and bring back images in the manner that our hands bring food to our mouths. This naive version of vision occurs along a two-way channel—out and then in. The creators of Superman must have shared with us this misconception of vision because they endowed the Man of Steel with the rather peculiar capacity of X-ray Vision. The mere perception of light in the x-ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum is not enough. It also requires that he send out penetrating x-rays that somehow get reflected back. Thus X-ray Vision requires that same two-way channel. His Heat Vision gives an even more clear cut example of rays coming out of the eyes.

I have read that a 19th century Native American tribe referred to cameras as "spirit catchers" and disdained being photographed. They reasoned, I presume, that cameras must have the power to reach out and grab some bit of the person's essence in order to produce a replica of that person. The subject of the photograph would be changed by the experience of being photographed. Likewise, the Eye-rays Model of vision seems to imply the creation of replicas in our minds using some of the real "stuff" of the observed thing that the rays have brought back.

You may have guessed that I don't think this is entirely a mistake.

Years ago a well-known parapsychological experiment was performed that claimed to show that subjects experienced a galvanic skin response when they were observed by others even when the subjects were unaware they were being watched (elemental mind-- 240 braud shafer andrews. More recently, Sheldrake has curated many more such experiments). A perceived thing "feels" and responds to being perceived as they are being "grabbed."

Receptivity and taking can be seen in this light as endpoints of a continuum of processes that can't really be distinguished from the outside. From the outside all we see is the movement. Passivity and action are orientations of language that are not reflected in the underlying reality. (Yin and yang are about descriptions not about that being described.)

It is easy and dangerous to go too far when applying this form of complementarity to human affairs. The concepts of co-dependence, passive-aggressive behavior and the "victim personality" recognize the validity of the active-passive switch in the descriptive realm. For example, it is possible to imagine that our victimhood is a kind of action for which we must share in the responsibility, if only slightly.

All events are interactions or exchanges. To influence is to be influenced. For every description of an event there is an equivalent and opposite complementary description. Another way to say this is that every event has both an active and a passive aspect.

Physicists tell us that all changes in physical systems happen as a result of the four known forces of nature—gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. Each operates on the subatomic level, we are told, as the exchange of particles—gravitons, photons, gluons, and bosons. We saw that our traditional idea of causation boils down to a coercive kind of force. At the level of these subatomic exchanges, force itself starts to look like a two way street-- more like communication and cooperation than like coercion. Action is always interaction.

How does a bolt of lightning know where to go, that it ought to hit the lightning rod rather than the roof? The explanation for the path a bolt will follow involves the principle of least action, an optimization law of great generality in physics. If, for example, at each moment during the flight of a projectile we calculate the difference between its potential and kinetic energies, the laws of mechanics guarantee that the sum of all those differences for the path followed will be smaller than that for any other path with the same endpoints. This is a remarkable fact that has given many scientists, notably Richard Feynmann, the peculiar feeling that projectiles must be "trying" to travel in the most economical fashion. In the case of lightning at least, it is tempting to say that this feeling represents something real. There is a kind of communication involved. Many people have experienced a tingling or felt their hair stand on end just before a lightening strike. The lightning seems to be feeling out a path for itself before it actually cuts loose.

I have long been a recreational volleyball player. One of the many great pleasures of that sport is successfully digging an opponent's spike. When I have felt particularly in the flow, I have frequently experienced a feeling of certitude that I knew exactly where the spike was going to go. I could feel my way to the spot. There are certainly plenty of subtle physical signals a spiker gives to indicate where she or he will hit the ball and there is also plenty of room here for delusion, but since I feel no compunction to seek the simplest explanation for things that happen, I am happy to contemplate the possibility that I have tapped into that two-way channel of causation. This two-way channel seems capable of embodying both Coercive and Passive Causation, both past-pushing and future-pulling causation.

An unpopular but not disproved interpretation of quantum theory also involves the idea of particles feeling their way around. In the 20's, Louis De Broglie, the discoverer of the wave nature of the electron, proposed the existence of what were called pilot waves.... Much later David Bohm, who along with Einstein did not believe in quantum indeterminacy and the essentially probabilistic nature of quantum reality, revived this idea of pilot waves under the new name of the quantum potential....

The word "perceive" itself literally means "to thoroughly take" suggesting again that what we feel we are doing when we sense the world is going and getting. The Eye-rays Model, right or wrong, suggests a complementary description that views what we normally think of as passive in an active light, that switches our assumption about the passivity of perception with an assumption that we take part in the process and change what we see. This switch makes eye-rays an attractive image for me to explore. We have looked briefly already at exchanging holism for partism, flux for permanence, anti-GLOI for GLOI, coldness for heat and the pull of the future for the push of the past. We have said that both sides of these dichotomies must in their turn be seen as an assumed premise to gain the fullest descriptive power but that neither side nor any combination captures the essence of the territory. Now, we will look at the implications of active perception.

Of course, there are actions involved in our usual idea of seeing or perceiving. Cognitive theorists tell us, for example, that the brain filters what we see, even constructs it to large extent by filling in expected but missing data. We divide perception into two parts, the first of which, sensing, is perfectly passive, while the other part, processing, is thoroughly active. Our minds can seek perceptions as well. We can concentrate our attention, turn our heads toward a sound, ask someone a question or go skydiving (presumably seeking the "rush" of perceptions), but these are not the kinds of reaching out I'm talking about. Eye-rays are active in a different and more intrinsic sense.

Dozens of pop science books by reputable, even eminent scientists lend a degree of support to the notion of active perception. Certain paradoxes in quantum mechanics have prompted these writers to speculate that the act of observing somehow helps to determine the outcome of quantum events by "collapsing the wave function." Schroedinger's probability wave equation, far from being a statistical approximation of reality as it was once thought to be, seems to represent the actual probabilistic nature of quantum reality. Reality has a wave nature but the waves are waves of probability. The equation seems to imply that Schroedinger's celebrated cat is both alive and dead until a measurement is taken, until an observer intervenes and the exchange takes place.

The idea that consciousness "interferes" with reality was first put forth by the brilliant Hungarian-American mathematician John Von Neumann in his seminal book on the mathematical foundation of quantum theory. "Quote"

Most scientists would not choose a position like observer participation if there were any reasonable alternatives. That's because observer effects tend to contradict or at least complicate an assumption upon which the whole validity of experimental science rests—the assumption that there exists an independent world out there that can be measured. Scientists would like to believe that there is a definite cut off between the "in here" and the "out there". Where is science to find impartial and objective reality if we can't help but meddle with everything we observe, if we spill over into it? There would be nothing that would count as evidence for conventional physical laws if the scientists themselves participated in manufacturing the evidence.

Consciousness itself has always been looked upon with great skepticism by the scientific establishment because it seems to explain away too many difficulties in one fell swoop. The presence of consciousness is also notoriously hard to test for or even define. We know we have it, but we can't say what it is. When its existence is acknowledged at all in hard science circles, consciousness is usually assumed to be an essentially materialistic process which somehow consists in simpler materialistic interactions, an epiphenomenon to more fundamental activity. But if consciousness plays a part in creating the world in the definite form that we know, then it has to be marked as intrinsic and fundamental.

Could it be true that consciousnesses do somehow come out into the world and grab a hold of things as the Eye-Rays and collapsing wave images suggest? If this were the case, then perhaps the particular way that the metaphorical reaching hand takes hold of the object would affect what was brought back—the dead cat or the live one. A particular consciousness would have a characteristic effect. An alien perceiver with a different "grip" of consciousness may bring back a different result. In the parlance of physics they may take a different measurement.

I have already mentioned the idea of reflection as an example of de-scription. I want to show in what sense that is the case. When we throw a ball toward a wall at an oblique angle, assuming there is no spin on the ball, it will bounce off at an angle equal to the angle of incidence. This action is summarized as a rule that every beginning physics student learns, "The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection." Light seems to bounce off of mirrors following the same rule, which, in this case can be mathematically justified by the optimization rule, the Principle of Least Time. That is, of all paths from A to B that bounce off a mirror somewhere, the one which will get from A to B fastest will be the one that follows the rule incidence = reflection.

It seems natural to assume that photons bounce like balls, but that simple image is contradicted by the current understanding afforded by quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman's wonderfully lucid lectures from his book QED: the Strange Theory of Light and Matter describe how we can assign a probability to the possibility that any given photon may follow fantastically more circuitous paths than those implied by simple "angle of incidence = angle of reflection." For every point on the mirror, for example, there is a certain vector whose length indicates the probability that the photon will really strike there. But after summing these vectors for the various paths, the ones for most locations will cancel with others, and we get a very high probability that the photon will indeed travel at or very near this simple trajectory.

The reality of these alternative paths is revealed by an experiment. If we carefully cover up bits of the mirror at regular intervals, we can make it so that probabilities for certain paths will not be canceled out. The path of a particular photon then becomes rather random, and a beam consisting of scads of photons will actually reflect off several different spots on the mirror rather the one simple spot. Amazing. I said this perfect cancellation stuff was a tricky business. Causing gets mixed with holding back. Anti-bounce muscles are called upon. Covering up a part of the mirror remote from the predicted region of reflection causes changes in the status of that region as favored.

What's more, these photons don't really bounce at all. They get absorbed by the mirror. This absorption then raises the energy level of the atoms in the mirror which thus emit photons of their own as the unstable states collapse to their lower energy levels. These photons don't come out in the predicted direction particularly but in exactly such a way that these probabilities of unexpected paths get canceled out. Simple reflection turns out to be an immensely complex process, a grab and throw rather than a bounce.

This grab and throw looks a lot like ex-planation (Bubble and Beacon models) and suggests again that an analog of our consciousness acts even on the atomic level...

Putting some form of consciousness in at the bottom of our explanations rather than adding it at the top does, as mentioned before, explains a lot of otherwise hard problems, and we must be careful how we tread here, but, ultimately, the difficulty of those problems suggest that something more is needed. There is no reason to exclude consciousness as a factor. I think, further, that the Smoothing Out Metaphor and the active/passive switch it involves make the assumption of consciousness seem rather plausible. That assumption itself can be framed as a switch from the dominant scientific view. Matter is prior to consciousness vs. consciousness is prior to matter. Each of these is no more than a starting place, not something that could be proved or disproved in some neutral system. We have seen that logic goes with creating such artificial hierarchies. The meta-system in which our logic is harder to apply says that consciousness and matter arise mutually.

The Eye-Rays metaphor has profound consequences for any model of perception which takes it into account. This metaphor will have important implications for revising the Smoothing Out Metaphor. The standard model of perception comes out of an image of the mind or brain as a computer or information processor. This model sees perception as inputs of inert data, as, for example, photons reflected off an object's surface or the chemical activation of sensors in the nose, not as stuff of the perceived object itself. What we eventually become conscious of is far removed from the thing itself. The reflected photons strike the retina which translates the phenomena into electrical neuronal signals which are then processed and finally consciously experienced. Most scientists would say that objects do not have odors, only our minds do. Chemicals emanating from the object produce reactions in us which our mind somehow experience as a smell. Thus the perception itself consists of our stuff rather than the stuff of the observed thing.

__________________________________

All the news that aint fit to print

Cameras, of course, aren't conscious perceivers. They certainly don't reach out. And yet they succeed perfectly well in creating images at least something like the images our eyes provide for us

Consideration of the grabbing metaphor of perception raises the question "If all perceptions involve exchanges, then might not all physical exchanges involve perception or consciousness?" Perception may not begin with sense organs and brains but may be in the very nature of material being. The sense organs and brains and memory may have evolved as enhancements to the intrinsic property. In putting forward the smoothing out model of explanation, I have already suggested that mind is an holistic affair rather than a mechanistic information processor. Minds have as much in common with an inflated ball as with a Macintosh.

{Pantheism}

According to the smoothing out theory of explanation from the last chapter, we have been put slightly out of kilter by the incoming stuff and will have to cancel it out or accommodate the change in order to re-achieve homeostatic balance.

This preliminary version assumes the passivity of perception. Thus explanations always occurred as reactions. We will see that active perception along a two-way channel will alter and broaden the notion of explanation. {+ pages}

Up to now I have used smoothing out and undoing interchangeably, but they that has only been in the service of simplicity. Rather than undoing or rejecting influence to maintain one's current state, it is equally feasible to incorporate or accommodate that influence to create a new but equally "smoothed out" steady state.

The question is raised "how do mere words undo actual influences?" This undoing stuff sounds more like shamanism than science. Reminds me of "In the beginning there was the word". That ultimate mystery of the relationship between the grammar of language and the grammar of existence continues to rear its ugly head

"Smoothing out" doesn't always mean "undoing"

(we then use explanations in a variety of ways. explanations are undoings but become models for doing, to impress our influence upon the world. we use explanations to communicate! this is a big aspect I have ignored. communication is proactive rather than reactive. I need to get out the complementarity of rejecting influence and influencing early on. the continuum of undoing and accommodating. i'm annoyed that its not coming across easily

Functions and their inverses.

There is the sense that our most active state is opening ourselves up to the flow. The ancient world of spirits and gods that animated us has been replaced with the world of outward directed selves. western action vs. eastern movement with the Tao. in a position to make a new synthesis.

tendency-intentionality. Influence-information (data with an intent-tendency vector). Here's a clue: negenergy=concentration, distilling. we recognize passive causation but only at the psychological rather than the ontological level to give is to receive. Indian giver expresses insight that gifts always have strings attached

determination of radio station

(suggestion of perpendicularity influence--effect complementarity

[I would suggest that the mind image created in this process is the de-scription. The image is the "inverse" of the influence. There is an extent to which the object is sending out stuff ad we are sucking in stuff as we send out our own. This is the essence of my give and take, foreground-background, two-way thang](What does this mean about sense organs? Am I setting up a distinction between some kind of direct viewing and ordinary sensation?)

clue:negenergy is related to consciousness, self-hood, concentration.

pilot waves, advance waves, two way nature of interaction (see advance waves in Genius) I'm now seeing "pre-events" bouncing back and forth as preliminary to the manifest event. This might also be the chapter to raise the idea of analog computation, how we know how hard to throw a basketball to reach the rim. If it were essentially computational rather than "real" what would the program look like? Intuitively, it seems unlikely that the brain calculates a signal strength and sends it to the biceps. two models-- computation vs. "living it" -- both seem preposterous. need a compromise like Bergson's "images"

principle of least action--quotes from Genius-- "how does the ball know what path will minimize... " leads into attraction and the future pulling the past. Reminds me of Bergson's image of the elan vital pushing (nondeterministically) like a jet rather than pulling events like a rope toward a definite end (point omega)

I had a dream-- the moment of decision, intentionality particle and advanced waves.

Emphasize that, at least at the start, this is a toy model. not intended to fit specific or actual cases but to seek maximal generality.

One can think of this by analogy to gravitation systems which can only be understood in terms of both gravity and inertia. Einstein's famous thought experiment showed that a person in room would experience the same physical effects whether the room was resting comfortably on the Earth or being accelerated through space at 32 feet per second per second. Thus there is a kind of equivalence between inertia and gravity. (more)

The passive side of this pair, inertia can be associated with persistence (of motion) while gravity is associated with change (or acceleration). In the system of chapter hhh inertia is the action of the gravitational field of the object on itself. Can we always associate passivity with action upon the self? (this is the subject of another chapter that I haven't a clue how to write)