Theistic Science Group

Website at TheisticScience.com 

Seeing by Influx

Latest entry:  Nov 16, 2020

Our topic for discussion.

Jan 6 (email): How the spiritual sees the natural, using influx?

  Such a process is necessary if the spiritual is to make the correct targets in the natural. It has to know the ‘present situation’.

  This, however, apparently goes against the direction of influx.   So there is some preliminary work to do, to see how the spiritual CAN see the natural AT ALL!   Only after that can we investigate ‘how’.

Jan 13, 2020: Skype discussion

Looking at the Silva paper, using influx makes us prefer Augustine's position. That is:

The soul, by conforming itself to the sensible species in the sense organ, makes in and from itself—i.e., by means of its own natural power and out of its substance—the images of sensible things. The image in the soul is, therefore, nothing but the soul assimilated to the cognizable exterior thing. 

The soul attends to the affections of the body—which do not pass unnoticed by the soul (DSF 102)—and directs itself towards the sensible objects, which are the cause of those bodily affections, in order to protect the body, which is the instrument of the soul for knowing sensible things. (p. 256)

Swedenborg's view of influx, as stated for example in his 'Interaction of the Soul and Body', ISB 1, is with 'spiritual influx':

[2] The SECOND hypothesis, which is called SPIRITUAL, and by some OCCASIONAL INFLUX, originates in order and its laws. For the soul is a spiritual substance, and therefore purer, prior, and interior; but the body is material, and therefore grosser, posterior, and exterior; and it is according to order that the purer should flow into the grosser, the prior into the posterior, and the interior into the exterior, thus what is spiritual into what is material, and not the contrary. Consequently, it is according to order for the thinking mind to flow into the sight according to the state induced on the eyes by the objects before them, which state that mind also disposes at its pleasure; and likewise for the perceptive mind to flow into the hearing, according to the state induced upon the ears by speech.

In line with this view, we must ask "When a love or intention has operated, can the love determine with the operation was successful or not successful?". We must conclude 'yes', otherwise why would loves try to do anything, if they made no difference to itself?  This suggests we must find a way of using the success (or failure) of influx as the basis for a mechanism for seeing. A way how to see by means of influx.

In a metaphor, the same question is: 'How, by monitoring influx of raindrops, can we make a map of a landscape?" We would do it by monitoring the times for which raindrops fall before they reach the ground.

So we come to a conclusion like this:  That influx is continually happening from the spiritual into the natural, and the spiritual degree is continuously monitoring how far the influx goes to completion or not. That 'monitoring of influx' seems to be possible basis for seeing and perception.

And, interestingly, this seems in line with theory of perception that has become common in sensory neuro-psychology in the last 15 years: Predictive Coding, or Predictive Processing. More details about this will be circulated soon.

Jan 14:  email.

Some existing theories in psychology seem to get seeing/perception out of something like ‘downward influx’, with some ‘error message’ if the influx is not satisfied.  It is called ‘predictive coding’ or ‘predictive processing’.

The paper by Dom is a simpler introduction, copied from https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/bayesian-brain-predictive-processing/

See also Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding , but that does not read so easily.

We need first to get the basic idea of what these neurologists are proposing for neurons to do, and then translate it into the behavior of spiritual substances.

Here are some Tables again from Ron’s email.

Heaven	External Mind	Physical
1.1 Celestial heaven	2.1 Internal rational	3.1 Gravity
1.2 Spiritual heaven	2.2 External rational	3.2 Electricity and Magnetism
1.3 ‘Natural’ heaven	2.3 Sensual/corporeal mind	3.3 Material things

We are now trying to connect 2.3 (the outer sensual/corporeal degree of the external mind) with 3.1 etc (the physical, where the brain is), so information can go from the brain to the sensual external mind. That is what we call seeing or perception. Insects do it, reptiles and mammals do it better.

The paper by Kirchoff examines, under this view, the relations between seeing and imaging: some general discussion at least.

Jan 20, 2020: Skype discussion on "Predictive Processing".

Most find the paper by Dom interesting, in particular how he sees several discrete degrees between the eyes and the mental:

Of course, we remind ourselves that these are not exactly discrete degrees by influx and correspondences, because Dom imagines them all as parts of neural networks in the brain. Still, we are free to re-interpret his structures within the framework of our discrete degrees. We similarly note that his description of Bayesian updates of the top-level modeling states is perfectly general. Bayesian logic is a general method that can equally be applied to spiritual as well as material processes, as long as they change their beliefs in a rational manner when new information is obtained (such as sensory information, in this case).  So we can see the downward 'predictions' from models as being driven by loves and affections.

Gard asked about whether there are speed issues in these perceptual processes, maybe similar to the issues for protein folding. Ian said that the revision of models seems to happen very quickly in our heads (mind and/or brain), and that he thinks these are analogous issues that might indeed have similar solutions.

Ron asked whether this process could be used not just in the brain, but also by influx into cells in order to see what is happening there and to work out what do do next. We think that a spiritual version of predictive processing ought to be able to do that. For if the cells are driven by influx into use, then the uses of the cell have their own specific influx. We discussed the differences between voluntary and involuntary desires and influx, and how he have cerebrum and cerebellum. 

Ron remarked that this Predictive Processing seems to have become widely accepted in sensory neuropsychology over the last decade. He thinks it might connect well to our theories of discrete degrees.

Reuben pointed our how servo-system behavior is common in organisms: adapt, over-shoot, and correct (repeatedly!). This could also happen here.

Gard posed the question that we ought to be able (eventually!) to answer:

Suppose a person is a room with their eyes closed. In the room there is also either a table or a chair. Can we describe all the processes which go on from the moment the person opens the eyes, to the time when they recognize whichever object is present?  What is our story?

This is a good question!, many of us thought.

Then there was lengthy discussion about the roles of the retina, the neural cells in the eye, the transmission to the visual cortex. Which of these receive influx? Which are part of the brain?

General question: Does this view of predictive processing  (with predictions (or targets) going 'down', and prediction error going 'up') fit into the general framework discrete degrees that operate only by spiritual influx (down), and never by physical influx (up)?  Andy in particular should think about this!

Gard quoted a sentence from ISB 1 that we also heard last week (see above):

Consequently, it is according to order for the thinking mind to flow into the sight according to the state induced on the eyes by the objects before them, which state that mind also disposes at its pleasure; and likewise for the perceptive mind to flow into the hearing, according to the state induced upon the ears by speech.

The phrase "mind to flow into the sight according to the state induced on the eyes" is particularly important for us to understand. What is the 'according to', and how is it used?

Jan 27, 2020: Skype discussion

We are trying to understand predictive processing from the point of view of influx. In the diagram above we see that the only downward flows are the predictions.  That seems a little odd, since I think of love and wisdom descending.  Is this what we read in ISB 1 that "mind to flow into the sight according to the state induced on the eyes" ?

Gard reminds us that in perception, the (outer) spiritual sensory is changing its state. That sensory is 'pluripotential': it is capable of accommodating itself to anything that it sees. That is surely reasonable.
Ron asks whether this change of state is sufficient for the management of every individual cell in the body.
The issue is to clarify the nexus - the interface - between that sensory and the body/brain/visual-cortex or wherever!! How, we ask, is that done by means of influx?

Ian talked of the 'two kingdoms': the heart and the lungs, or the celestial and the spiritual. The celestial kingdom is concerned with managing love, ends and getting things done. The spiritual kingdom is concerned with wisdom, understanding and information, and in providing that information to the other love kingdom.

Andy talked about how so often the first kingdom in the body is red, and the second kingdom is white. For example, red blood, muscles, etc, compared with white membranes, connections, and in the brain. The general idea, at least.

Ian proposed a scheme for how the visual field in the sensory mind could arise from a scheme of influx. His scheme requires

1. that whenever any influx occurs, the upper source degree gains some awareness of how successful that influx was in achieving the desire that produced the influx.
2. So: the sensory mind starts of as a combination of all colors red, green, blue (RGB), as in white light from which all can be produced by modifications.
3. the sensory mind generates influx into the visual system (e.g. visual cortex) for each of the 3 colors: R, G and B.
4. the visual cortex accepts that influx according to its input from the color-sensitive cones in the retina. If red is being viewed, then influx of the R-kind is more successful, and so on.
5. So the sensory spiritual gets a whole lot of information about what combinations of R-influx, G-influx, and B-influx are successful, everywhere in the visual field to which attention is directed.
6. From that information of various 'success rates', the sensory spiritual generates in itself a mental image of the visual field.
7. From that image, the mind learns to recognize objects no matter variations of distances and of rotations and of light intensities (we have not yet talked about this).

So, from influx and measure of success-of-influx, we information in the body can end up mirrored in the mind. This is the "according to" that ISB1 talks about.

This is similar to the Predictive Processing theory, except that PP has not 'success rates' but their opposite: "prediction errors". The same functions can of course take place, and the overall organization can be similar.
 

Andy reminds of course that understanding is the spiritual eye. Ian agreed that similar corresponding processes could be occurring between all pairs of spiritual degrees connected by some influx.

Andy says he likes these ideas! Good.

Andy also suggested we check what wrong ideas about color that Isaac Newton had to give up in the spiritual world. See www.eswedenborg.com/writings/static/d9082/291.htm. This article also remarks on red and white as above.

Feb 3, 2020: Skype discussion

Dates:

1. The 2020 Retreat needs 50-word session summaries by today.  Steve will not be there. Ron is uncertain.
2. Conference call next week on Wed Feb 12, at the same time.
3. Send two-paragraph summaries to Andy by Feb 10
4. Reuben wants to make a whole New Philosophy issue by the end of February.

Continuing discussion about 'seeing with influx'.

Ron asks if we could use another flow chart starting with general influx to (inner and outer) spiritual sensory to actions in the cell, not necessary fixed to vision as Ian wrote about last week (see items 1-8 above). Ian agreed that we do need to do this, but he will still thinking out the details.

Steve quoted AC 3702, especially the end of [1]: "the human being has been so created that Divine things that are the Lord's may come down through him even to the lowest things of the natural order, and from the lowest things of the natural order may go up to Him."  He wonders how ' lowest things of the natural order may go up' at all, given the influx is only downward. "

Gard said that the return had to be phenomenological, not physical, and that it only occurred when the inner and outer were in correspondence.  Reuben said that this ascent began in the body, and continued as sensations in the human mind. Ian suggested that it was the 'satisfaction' or 'delights' of love that return upward. This is not 'physical influx' at all, since delights actually are generated by love and desire not by the external physical.

Andy just before the meeting sent a quote of AC 10057. We note in particular its beginning and ending:  "what is seen with the eyes and heard with the ears is perceived inwardly with man, and as it were passes out of the world through the eyes or ears into the thought, thus into the understanding, for the thought is of the understanding; and if they are such things as are loved, they pass from this into the will" and later "For there is an influx from the spiritual world into the natural, thus through the internal man into his external, but not the reverse".   We ask how are these statements compatible? Is there any 'upward' effect, even if it is not influx?? How??

Gard insists that 'the prior can always see the posterior'.  Andy suggest that there is some kind of 'resonance' when inner and outer things are in correspondence, whereby they are both affected. Andy agreed that it must be an 'affect' in the interior that we are talking about.  Ian asked again: what difference does that make to the spiritual?  Gard said there must be some effect, especially if a use is being accomplished.

Gard related watching a YouTube video about the visual cortex, and how there might even be a representation in its great complexity of a 'visual map' of the external 2D or even 3D world.  Steve reminded that communication in the neural system consists of electrical and chemical signals alternating. Andy and Reuben recalled the great role of the cerebellum, a brain of its own that that does 90% of the work of managing the body without us being conscious of its function.

Steve mentioned his reading of neuro-psychology papers, and how they often mention 'prediction errors'. We know that these must be all for predictions that come from the desired ends of some love, that is hardly mentioned in the journals.  Reuben and several asked if Steve could write up this for us.

Gard recalled Ian's earlier concept of 'selection' as the general mechanism we are looking for in all this discussion. It may only be a metaphor, he says, but certainly a useful one. We can well think of the pluri-potential sensory cortex having its spiritual state selected by specific signals coming into the sensory cortex from the external senses.

Ian talked about how the writings emphasize 'spiritual influx' against 'physical influx' in order to prevent materialism. But that teaching should not prevent is from seeing how a spiritual state may change according to whether its recent action was successful or not.  That 'according to' is certainly not materialism, so it should be allowed in general. We have now seen so often in various quotes how, in the same paragraph arguing for spiritual influx, there is yet description of spiritual states according to variations in the natural world.  He has talked in the past of the dual roles of 'generation' down and 'selection' up.

Ron then asked whether we could distinguish, in cellular activities, whether they were coming from influx or from reflex. Coming from influx means from some external spiritual degree, and coming from reflexes means from the cell itself. Another good question, Ian said.

Feb 12, 2020: Skype discussion

1. Andy is collecting sections for the NCL article on our October Symposium. Ron agrees with Ian that writing as we seems to work well. Andy will find the second article that Ian emailed, and also contact Reuben about his contribution.
2. Ron recommends reading Ian's weekly summaries at www.theisticscience.com/seeing.htm
3. We should be beginning to write NP articles from our talks. Steve says he has already begun.
4. The next conference call will be on Monday, Feb 17 at the usual time

Much of today's discussion follows from Feb 3 issues, on how love is able to see 'below itself' with only downward spiritual influx.

Andy agrees that love must be able to see below itself by means of resistances to its actions. Love is able to tell whether its actions are successful, or not. This behavior is not an addition to spiritual influx, but must be a basic feature of spiritual influx. It must be part of the essence of that influx.

How this connects to other parts of the Writings. Such that Reflection most often comes when we are not successful. Reflection must occur, but it arises most often when an 'error' occurs in love's action. The cerebellum's actions are mostly successful, and we are hardly aware of them: our awareness mostly only occurs when something goes wrong (over-exertion or injury, for example). The cerebellum operates by many local feedback mechanisms, including within cells - and every feedback mechanism has a 'error return' as part of its operation.

Ian suggests that this is how the 'spiritual kingdom' works, the 'kingdom of cognition' (in contrast to the celestial kingdom, or the 'kingdom of use'). The kingdom of cognition is continually making predictions of future sensations. These predictions, he thinks, are like 'will targets' except that they are not designed to have any major effect. Their only function is to register success or failure, as in the color-perception example he gave above (Jan 27). Ron suggests they could be called 'informational targets'. Ian says its like putting your finger the air to detect the wind, but not at all to change the wind.

Ron asks whether these perception mechanisms can be used within cells, for example to decide when proteins need to be folded. Andy reminds us that all cells have a General Influx into each organ, and into each cell. Now, he thinks, there is influx into all the many parts of the cell that we now know about. Each organ, each cell, each cell module should correspond to a larger or smaller society in the heavens, and should benefit in its function by the influx from each such society. We say 'general influx', but mean a general set of many different specific influxes. Ian suggests the influx is in to the uses of each biological part, and if the uses fail in any way (as frustration occurs) then error signals get passed back up the nested management feedback loops until it is 'seen' what to do to remedy the problem.

Andy mentioned an article by Sydney Lee in NCL of June 1966, discussing colors and sight in the eyes, and recommends we read it. We realize that color vision must be fairly automatic. Steve remarks that, when studying cell functions, it is almost like living within a cell. He asks whether those of us in the NC can see things rationally and more clearly. We trust so.

Feb 17, 2020: Skype discussion

1. Andy has collected all but one section of the proposed NCL article. He do some preliminary merging and tidying styles, and will circulate the resulting draft to us all.
2. Reuben would like drafts of our full articles for NP by the end of Feb. Send them to him and Lisa Childs, as well as to the rest of us. Details of comments and processing still to be clarified.
3. Next call at usual Monday time on Feb 24. Ron wants to focus on Ian's LDRD application.

Andy reminds us of AC129: "to believe the Word of the Lord, and, so far as possible, confirm spiritual and celestial truths by natural truths, in terms familiar to the learned world". Gard has noticed that some ideas, such as 'dispositional essentialism', are close to concepts that are needed, and so could be used as a bridge. We do that. But we could well find 'a problem' that these concepts can solve.

Reuben talked of biological organisms, and how there are all the many pathways. But how are they managed? It is like a clock once it is going: how did that happen? Steve said that these pathways are not through a vacuum, but in a crowded and living cell, where there will be many distractions and interferences. How are those stopped from making a mess of everything?

Ian mentioned that he had prepared a trial grant application for a 'Lab-wide LDRD' research (Laboratory Directed Research and Developments), in which many of our technical issues are re-arranged within a scientific framework that should be understandable to today's scientists in physics and biology. Everyone asked him to send out the draft, so they could see the style of this approach. Ian said the deadline was March 16, so any advice would be useful.

Then more discussion about 'resistance' to the actions of love, following all our above conversations this year. How God cannot see the hells, but knows everything about them from the way they resist. How God is omnipresent, and enables reflection by us: how the spiritual can see the natural. How this reflected turn can be formulated positively, as delight not just resistance. How there must be resistance if actions cannot be accomplished as originally desired. Gard talked of Jacob's ladder, with traffic both down and up. Reuben says there is influx down, and information up. Gard remembered how the visual cortex is very complicated (6 layers), and images could well be carried upwards by changes of state.

Andy reminded us of Swedenborg's insight that disease comes from outside the body, not from inside: predated Pasteur's later realization of bacterial infections. Then Ron asked how societies in the GM would become aware of diseases and errors in the specific biological systems they correspond to. Lots of suggestions.

Ian had sent Sydney Lee's NCL article (1966) on color vision. Andy had used it in classes, and thought it very useful, especially as it included exercises for the readers.

Ian asked, after all the recent discussions, whether our working with concepts from Predictive Processing would be a fruitful collaboration, or not? Steve was in favor. We have a scheme where influx and power flow down, and information and selection go up (though not flowing up). If so, Ian suggested we ought by the end of the year to write an article for NCL or NP on this issue, because it is non-trivial within the NC.

PS. Andy referred to AE 1206 which discusses uses in one translation the word 'effectrix' for successive actions in the natural that are yet still spiritually caused.

Mar 2, 2020: Skype discussion

1. The call on Feb 24 was mostly concerned with discussing Ian's research grant application. Gard emailed afterwards some suggested improvements.
2. Today, Andy sent out yesterday the first complete draft of the NCL summary of our Symposium. Ian sent back some reformatting suggestions.  Later Andy emailed to ask if anyone had further suggestions to change in Ian's version.
3. We should register soon for the GC Retreat in June. Then more of our sessions are more likely to take place! The fee goes up on April 15.
4. Next call at usual Monday time on Mar 9. 

Ron started by asking whether the 'targets' we discussed at the Symposium are also used in perception, such as with Predictive Processing.  Ian replied that targets are indeed used, but what happens to the error of the target (its difference with physical degree) is quite different. For will-targets, the error goes down to the physical, to adjust materials there. For perception-targets, by contrast, the error goes up, to adjust the modeling processes in the sensory mental. In both cases, targets are used in the sense of being a 'statement' of what the physical state could be in the near future. For will-targets, they are intentions. For perception-targets, they are predictions. So there are systematic differences, and some overlap.  Some people in their everyday life, though, get their operation muddled, so they see only what they intend ('see what they want to see').  But remember too, that every love/desire/intention has attached to it some kind of perception of what is coming soon: that perception is present with all influx. So there are feedback loops operating wherever influx is occurring. Every love has its own way of perceiving.

Then Steve talked on whether all perception is conscious or not.  We remember that there are many 'internal' loves (in the cerebellum, for example), for which we are not aware of their perceptual processes. Many of these are not in our awareness, but someone in the Grand Man may still register them in some way.  Also think about consciousness in animals: not mens, but anima and animus: as we can see in dogs every day. What about plants? They at least appear to have a 'desire to grow'!  Then followed a long discussion of instances of perception (of some kind) in plants. Discussion of trees and birds in the spiritual world. These have two kinds of functions here, Gard pointed out: (a) trees and birds correspond to rational thinking in humans. And (b) there are the actual spiritual processes going on in those trees and birds, which may well be simpler, though they will correspond (in their functional structure) to rational thinking.

Gard asked about the role of Predictive Processing in Ian's grant application: was that more a stand-in for influx from higher degrees?  Ian said yes. But also that PP mechanisms are still interesting for us to explore, since they correspond to some of the basic processes for how all discrete degrees relate to each other. We can learn from both sides, and also from how they are related.

Ron asked what will happen to physicists' thinking once they realize that permittivity changes do occur specifically to help protein folding? What would be their reaction?  Ian said he did not know. Some might be upset because their 'firm ground' is shaking. Others might be keen that there is new physics that they can investigate. Ian said that he will circulate to the group any feedback or comments he gets from his grant application. Should be interesting to read, Ron said.

Mar 23, 2020: Skype discussion

1. The GC2020 retreat has been postponed, and probably canceled for this year. 

Steve had circulated the paper by Thomas Metzinger from https://predictive-mind.net/papers/the-problem-of-mental-action. A good introduction to trying to understand the nature of mind and psychology. Gard noted how Metzing has good examples of thought processes that are carefully defined and described. His 'constant stream of affordances' is in fact close to being a 'constant stream of love', even if he has no idea that thoughts flow in.  Metzinger very usefully descibes those mental processes that are above the sensory. We know that there are lots of those! 

Ron remarked on Metzinger's description of mental actions. Ian asked whether this whole topic of 'psychology of mind' is to be our project this year 2020? Or just sensory psychology. Could we stay simple, or should we cover the whole external mind (degree 2. and subdegrees 2.X.Y in the ennead formulation)?  Ian in fact wondered whether it might be necessary to cover all of the external mind in order to understand even the sensory mind.  Might it take a village even to see a pebble? Does it take (2.1) wanting, (2.2) back and forward thinking, as well as (2.3) sensory and memory in order to understand sensing?  He said he might well later in the week circulate a more complete description of these ideas.

Gard thought we could focus on the following discrete degrees: (1) outermost in the visual cortex, (2) the mental image, (3) world psychology, (4) Swedenborg's psychology from the HD, and (5) the causal influx linking these.

Steve asked about the 'homunculus fallacy'. Andy pointed out that in the HD we do have homunculi, but only up to the Divine.  Ian points to paper on this subject by Elliot Sober, Why must homunculi be so stupid?, to understand standard thinking on this issue. In the HD, the homunculi are not stupid, but get more intelligent!

Steve noted with pleasure Metzinger's 'desire to be proved wrong', which Gard idenitified as an affection for truth, and from truth.

Gard tried to remember an article (by Thomas Nagel?) on consciousness as 'what is like to be that person'. Animals have narrow consciousness, much more based on memory.

Mar 30, 2020: Skype discussion

• Ian advised us to read the first 2 1/2 pages of the paper by DiCarlo et al: How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition?
• Ian circulated a Word document of his proposal for how the 2.3 discrete degree might function to give the object perception ability of the everyday external mind. This is the current version of this proposal.
• Steve mentioned the paper by Filevich et al: Intentional inhibition in human action: The power of 'no'

Ron exclaimed that now we had many new concepts to understand: invariance, transformation, and perception. Gard remarked how there have been already several generations of materialist psychologists who have developed a traditional technical style for writing about these issues. Steve said that this is a style that carefully avoids the significant problems related to consciousness itself (the real problem which everyone admits but no-one can solve!).

Gard commented again this week that the Metzinger paper carefully describes mental space and 'mental actions' in a way which seems to us as rather promising. Maybe he could be a new William James who knows more than he wants to admit or tell.

Ian talked about his new circulated proposal for how humans begin to see objects based on their memory of object-concepts, and that this may be common with the perceptual abilities of many mammals. Steve remembered the need of young children to name objects, and thinks it might be connected. He also remembers George Lakoff describing the ability of some cultures to accurately focus on the genera of plants and trees (but not species). Ian points out that his theory applies to children up to age 5 or 6: up to Piaget's 'intuitive stage', before they can conceive of reversible operations.  Ian's proposal is unusual, in having 'super-positions' in the mind analogous (in correspondence to) super-positions in quantum mechanics. This will take a while to properly comprehend.

Ian talked about the many transformations needed in order to have a constant perception of a stationary object even as we move around: our eyes are saccading, heads moving, eyelids blinking, body walking, etc, but objects still appear to be stationary (we learn, and then see automatically). Maybe some of these transformations themselves are not specifically learned, but are part of the standard transformation that is always present to map spiritual intentions with physical achievements and uses.

Gard pointed out that something like this is absolutely necessary even for basic 'survival'. We could not live, act, or even stand up if the ground did not appear stationary even as we moved. Some of us remember trying new glasses (eg progressive lenses) and having to learn this again over a day or two. So Gard thought that the basic processes of balance and object recognition and perceptual invariances are so basic that they must be needed and intrinsic in so many living organisms.

Ian explained how his new proposal now needed something like memory, of which we have not had a clear idea of up to now in our discussions. He took a basic idea of memory as constituted by the limbus made of 'old targets' in the 3.1 degree: a 'permanent monument' to previous intentions, including the process which previously mapped object concepts onto sensory appearances. Andy and Gard talked about other kinds of memory that might be available too: we have much to learn.

Steven mentioned a paper referred to by Metzinger:: Intentional inhibition in human action: The power of 'no'. He recommends we read it. Gard talked how 'saying no' was connected with autonomy, origination and ownership, as Metzinger describes. The connection of this with the HD proprium and freedom also needs to be explored -- noting that freedom itself is never just an appearance.

Apr 6, 2020: Skype discussion

Steve says he has been re-reading Hugo Odhner's book "The Human Mind", and finds it very interesting.  Ian says it is available online here. 

On terminology, Gard says that "material ideas" are ideas of material objects. Just like "natural mind": the external mind dealing with things of nature. Ron asked whether we need more distinctions that physical/non-physical. We say yes: the non-physical does not resolve between mental / spiritual / divine.  Gard says that, in NC thought, the 'non-physical' starts at the 2 degree of our ennead. The interface we are dealing with is between 2.3 (outer mental) and 3.1 (inmost physical). Ian agreed: the mind (2.3) is what creates the targets in 3.1, and then discerns the 'satisfaction' / 'completion' of these targets. This last discerning is the basis on which we can build a theory of perception in a world still governed by downward influx. 

Gard insists that 2.3 has memory, but thinks there is something he has not understood properly yet. Do we need "encoding" for a theory of memory? Can a mouse function without memory?  This lead to a long discussion about intuition in humans vs instinct in animals. Andy explains the very many instincts in animals as the external ideas that automatically come from the spiritual world along with the distinctive love that defines every animal class and animal. Gard and Andy discussed the role of memory in animals (and, Ian, points out, very young babies).

Steve mentioned the paper Picard (2013), about howsome seizures can give sense of complete certainty and happiness. The authors wondered if this could come from blocking all returns of prediction errors in desiring and thinking. We agree that such a situation would have analogies to celestial angelic life in which every desire is fulfilled, and every thought is true: at least apparently so in those seizures.

Gard finished by talking again on a 'basic neurological question': how is reality related to a mental image? He thinks that every image must come with the transformations-to-reality built in - embedded in the image, so to speak, so it includes all 'object core recognition' and the invariance of transformations. In (eg) both humans and mice. 

Gard further thinks that memories are in the higher rational too, since in the Writings 'scientifics' can be translated as 'memory-knowledges'.  Andy does not completely agree, since in teaching science there is a huge difference between 'rote memory' of science and a proper scientific understanding (eg) of causation. Ian agrees.

Ian afterwards suggests we all read chapter IV of the above Odhner book: The Formation Of The Memory.

Postscript on 'memory knowledges':

Potts discusses this in his introduction to AC, see (eg) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arcana_Coelestia_(Potts). He favors using "memory knowledge" in many places.  Potts refers to AC 27 and to AC 1486.

But even here, different meanings are intended concerning what is remembered in the external man:

• AC 27: "whatsoever is insinuated into the memory of the external man, whether it be natural, or spiritual, or celestial, abides there as memory-knowledge [scientificum]"
• AC 1486: "all memory-knowledges, which belong solely to the external man; for they are procured from earthly and worldly things by means of sensuous impressions, in order that they may serve the interior or rational man, and this the spiritual man, this the celestial, and this the Lord".

Ian afterward suggests we need the idea of 'corporeal memory' (or 'material memory' by analogy to 'material ideas' above). Odhner talks of this:

The memory of material ideas is called, in the Writings, the corporeal memory; i.e., the memory of our bodily experiences. It is also referred to as "the memory of particulars" (SD 1077-1079). It is not a memory of things thought but of things sensed, and of the symbols, names, and attributes of such things. 

Apr 13, 2020: Skype discussion

• Reuben said that all the articles have been received for the new issue of New Philosophy, explaining the ideas from last Oct 12 Symposium. Lisa was working on them. Ian asked to be able to proof-read his content, especially concerning the colors and the equations.

Andy reminded us of the enormous content of some kinds of human memory described in HH 462. Reuben talks of his idea that new influx washes unwanted memories to the dry periphery. H.Odhner's book described how every memory includes the motivating desires as part memory.

Gard described more details of how he conceives of sensory memory, building on the ideas from last week. He talks of the outermost 2.3.3 mental interface to the physical, and how 'percepts' are made. These are the mental representations, and are the sensory phenomenon we seek to understand: we need to see how 'core object recognition' works.  He has read much literature on neural and brain function. His idea is that at the 2.3.3 the interface percept is 'computational'. More specifically, it already includes the spatial and appearance transformations calculated by the visual cortex, and in an automatic way. He says that no memory is involved. And that this occurs in humans and nearly all animals.  There is memory, but that would be at a higher degree, Ron  and Ian asked if there was a 'corporeal memory' or 'memory of particulars? No, Gard said.  Steve reminded us again about associated affections: these are at higher level. At the outermost level is the 'sensorimotor mind', as in Ian's enneads. Ian agreed that names and symbols were at the higher levels than 2.3.3.  Gard said he had been thinking about these issues for a long time, since he was early involved in sports psychology. In that field there is a need to reduce extra thoughts that distract from perfection (eliminating all extra neural processing until you only have what is needed).

Ian pointed out that if Gard view is correct, then there would be no need for infants and new-born animals to ever learn how to do core object recognition. Much is clearly innate in animals, but was perception really automatic in neonate humans? Ian did not think so. He thought that sensory system might overall function as Gard described, but that the invariant object recognition might well be level just above: the 2.3.2 level: Piaget's 'pre-operational' stage that matures only in child years 2-4. The 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 would normally function together well as a whole. Gard agreed this might be possible.  Ian still thinks that 'memory of particulars' does exist.

Ron said he still wants to know 'how does  influx in cells recognises the core object of a protein?'.

Postscript:

Ian afterwards sent out 2 papers which are important to our questions as they examine growth of object recognition in early development  -- Wood in young chickens; and Nishimura a review of human infant skills. The Wood and Nishimura papers both suggest that ‘invariant object recognition’ is not innate or instinctive, but is learned in early childhood:

From the HD point of view, it may well be that the ability to learn invariant object recognition is itself innate in the sense of governed by influx common to all newly born animals (at least birds and mammals, presumably).  He thinks he remembers other experiments showing that, without widely diverse perceptual experiences, even neural development is retarded. (From the HD point of view, of course, such experiments do not distinguish influx-causes from biochemical-causes of neural development)

Apr 20, 2020: Skype discussion

• In response to Ron's question last week, Ian circulated a sketch of a proposal for How cells know when to fold gracefully, for discussion.

Ian asked Andy to read and comment on this proposal, since it relates to what Andy talked about last October.

Ron asked about quantum entanglement: what did instantaneous communication across large distances imply about influx. Ian replied that he saw entanglement only as the consequences of communication by some higher discrete degree (perhaps via the spiritual world). One electron is observed, for example, and a result communicated to heaven. Heaven is outside physical space, so can communicate that result to the other entangled electron.

Gard talk in more detail about his ideas on vision and perception. He thinks we can regarded the 'sensual' or 'corporeal' mind as the outermost degree 2.3.3 of the mental, dealing specifically with objects and actions. But still the 'core object recognitions' below that are in the neurological processes of the cortex, which does all the geometric transformations to/from what the eyes saw. That is, there is no memory, logic or deductive steps in those transformations (except implicitly). He refers to AC 978 with "sensory things - not those of the body but those derived from bodily things - [form] the external [man]', but object recognition is not done in this sensual man.

Ian, however, said he disagrees. He thinks that the 3D object and action transformations are more easily placed in the outer regions of the mind, considering that details of operating those transformation have to be learned in infancy of humans and other animals. He also suspects that many processes currently attributed to brain activities by neuropsychologists may in fact by actually mental and spiritual processes of some kind.
Steve, for example, talked about 2-3 old babies being described by Stanislaw deHaene, and being able to distinguish groups of 2 or 3 visual markers in correlation with 2- or 3-fold rhythms. Ian wondered whether that was from the neuron processing, the infants mind, or from the accompanying angels that see through the babies eyes and will still react from their affections.

Gard talked about the possible theory of perception as the selection between superpositions of possible objects seen at possible viewpoints.  Ian explained how there is both a spiritual kingdom for cognition and a celestial kingdom for use, and our discussion of perception focuses only on the cognitive side, following Piaget in particular. The earlier table (from here) also showed Erikson's descriptions of affectional degrees: equally important!

Gard reminded us that 'memory' is a high-level term with recall from personal memory. Object recognition cannot involve multiple steps of cognition, even in babies, and especially in sports. There will be mechanism, but it is does not involve thinking.

Postscript:
Ian agreed that Gard pointed out to an important difference several times during today's discussion:  This is whether cognitive processes necessarily take multiple steps of which we are conscious, or whether they act as a mechanism operating outside our consciousness.

   We agree that neurons processing in the brain, whatever they do, will be on the mechanistic side and unconscious to our everyday life. However, sometimes even mental processing can be become as-if-mechanistic and hide its details from our everyday life.

From SSFG section 17.2 (http://www.beginningtheisticscience.com/book/awareness.html):

Sometimes, the love and wisdom within a level seem to be already united. This happens, for example, after a procedure or habit has already been formed. To start with, all procedures require conscious attention, but, after practice, the constituting ingredients seem to stay united most often. The procedure becomes like a 'module' that functions without conscious attention to its internal sequence. We no longer have the distinct awareness of the kind described above. Rather, the module becomes simply part of the action. When consciousness focuses on the result of a conscious action, it sees not just the immediate effect in its own level but also the further effects that result from all the unconscious operations of derivative dispositions in modules that are invoked. This is the perfectly normal pattern when we learn a skill. To start with we have conscious awareness of the initial ingredients and their effects. After the skill is learned, it is like invoking a unitary module in the mind. The result is that the conscious awareness of the action is now very much focused on the final effect. A good workman does not focus on his tools. He is instead aware of th0 effects of his tools on the target of their operation. The conscious presence has then moved from inside the mind to the final effect, which may be outside the body.^27.2

27.2: See (Riva 2011) for further discussion of consciousness and presence within series of several derivative intentions and also when external technologies are used.  I would take the levels of this paper's Figs 1 and 2 to be discrete levels in the mind, not solely in neuron structures.

PS 2:The proposal here has been revised to distinguish recognition abilities from memory of specific past experiences.

May 18, 2020. Zoom discussion.

1. No feedback yet from LLNL about the research proposal.
2. Ian's collection of papers at http://www.theisticscience.com/papers.html has been re-organized.

Ron's query:  We have established that there is no monitoring at this level either neurologically or through the senses. It would seem that the limits of our understanding other then observing the effects will come from the piecing together the Writings of Swedenborg. Andy started to talk again about this last week.

Ian discussed again the roles of the celestial kingdom (aka kingdom of the heart, aka all the .1 degrees). He noted AC 5172, which talks of some parts of the Grand Man who act from good, but without much thought or external perception. All they see is whether good is on track or not. He suggests that such a society could be responsible for the derived loves that are responsible for protein folding: they do not make long-term plans, but do immediately whatever is necessary to achieve the good ends that are desired.  Then AC 5173  talks of refining and purification. We should also think of protein selection and folding, etc, etc. 

Think about all these processes when they occur in animals and plants as well as in humans. Not even the simplest processes in biological cells can take place without influx that wants to see their results accomplished so that the ‘want’ is satisfied. If it is not being satisfied, then revised intermediate goods are felt to be necessary and therefore worked towards. (This last line describes something functioning like a very primitive perception).

The question of seeing (more specific than 'perception', Gard reminds us) is one we started to discuss in 2020, as portrayed from the start of this web page.  This is to understand how we (and animals) see objects with our eyes, there are many unsolved issues in science (psychology and neurology). See  here for some papers discussing the issues. These talk about the everyday functions of our eye. (This will be some time be connected to the 'concentration mechanism' in the sports prowess that Gard has discussed). From the top of this page we have  talked about predictive processing as one method for seeing. ; See here for papers on that.

We agreed that 'psychon' is a plausible name for mental substance, especially since we (unlike Eccles himself) know what is the nature of that substance. Namely love. (So every psychon object has at least a slightly different substance!).

Some discussion about conservation of energy, and whether this could satisfied only 'on average' as Eccles claims, because "In quantum physics at microsites energy can be borrowed provided it is paid back at once". Ian believes we should just accept non-conservation of energy to some extent and in some places, for reasons explained in papers by Pitts and Cucu in the above literature page.  Reuben thinks Stephen Wolfram may have some similar idea. To discuss more in the future.

Gard recommends we link explicitly with Eccles' papers, especially because of his prominence. We agree that his concepts of Worlds 1 and 2 (physical and mental, respectively) are congenial. Eccles also uses a similar method to ours (of a 'influx success' indicator)  for getting perception to function in a system with only mental-to-physical influence: that "or exocytosis in accord with selection by means of the quantal probability field. The hypothesis is that each such exocytosis is a 'success' for the psychon, which gives a signal that is transmitted into the mental world 2". Eccles has more knowledge of neurology than we do, at which point Andy reminded of us of the series starting from  AC 4041:  "that the brain is formed in accordance with the form of the flow of heaven".