From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Misha Gromov Subject: Re: Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 20:52:31 +0000 no need to know. it works. it takes input and makes a coherent story. ( image ). it is bounded by frequency.. so is sound . why shoudnt the same algorithm (used loosely ) , form concepts into understandings. . not sure if the idea is bad or merely my explantion of it On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Misha Gromov wrote: I am not certain we know the much about the higher level vision processing in the brain, but this is where the processing of the language begins On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:46:30 -0500, jeffrey E. wrote: i dont think many algorithms should be part of the brain. I believe that turning input into a coherent shape is similar in vision hearing and thought. we know more about vision. edges verticals horiz etc. why not the same for concepts. ideas. . the image i see must be decoded into a whole . the concepts i imagine need the same program. first black anc white, shapes , etc. for vision. as the feedback loop develops. things come into focus. . same with thoughts. . I am still perplexed by how little control we have over the thing we call " I " / it does most things , it wants , it reacts without "I " input. the signal for repair is not under control , cuts breaks stings. all done by the magician with no way to override it. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Misha Gromov c wrote: Probably, I have o think more, but once you start thinking about how you think you never accept what everybody elsc think about how you think. On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:50:01 -0500, jeffrey E. wrote: see, ? perceive? understand? illusion? all but i like the recursive shape space more and more. with closer iteration to what it means to understand. . my model is comprised of a set function that after recursion comes closer to coherence . but also depends on the subects algorithm. its very nice. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Misha Gromov <IIMS wrote: And