Georgina Woodward
The whole world necessarily speaks the same low-level natural language, because on both sides of low-level interactions, the meaning is understood, i.e. the available actually-currently-existing low-level information is perceived by the world: otherwise, these interactions couldn’t take place.

However, a greater amount of meaning, a greater amount of information, depends on building a network of logical connections which analyse and organise the natural-language low-level information. This is as opposed to the lawful, “mathematical” connections between the natural-language low-level information, which can’t increase the amount of information.

This higher-level information/ greater amount of information is necessary for the survival of living things, because a vast quantity of unanalysed low-level information coming from photons is no use to organisms.

It is necessary that living organisms can identify things, e.g. an apple, against a background of other things. But this requires that the incoming low-level information, coming from interactions in the eyes, be analysed and organised by the organism. As I said, there are no labels on photons, no apple-photons and non-apple-photons: without analysis and organisation of the information, objects can’t be identified.

The vision of living things is nothing like a camera, or a photo.

      Lorraine Ford
      A camera can act as an observerjust as asimple organismcan. The observation product is a photo wheras the observation peroduct of the organism is present visual experience, not necessarilconscious perception and surther thoughabout the object aacording to prior experiences and learned or developeed subjective world view. Both camera and organismonly saample a fraction of the totall potential sensory data released tothe environmwent.Which photons willdepend on where the observer is located giving their unique point of view. Both camera and eye has photosenstie components photoereceptor sor photo-cells that respond preferentially to some frequency or frequency bands and a range but not all intensities. So a product we recognise with the higher level functionsof human vision is produced tlowerlevel vision and working off camera. We are able tosay the input in bothcassesis partially processed. Many photons are not processed into the final image product. Psychological factors,such as tiredness , drunkenness can effect the organism,effecting image quality. Maldfuction of components can effect the working of the camera,effectingi mage quality.

        Lorraine Ford
        The viual system and camera are both what I have been calling reality interfaces,. Both function at the boundary between reality types The type of reality is converted from foundational and material, to emergent, information derived. Photon's are released to the environment by materials and objects . This happens whether seen or not , it is observartion independent , Both the photons and Source object are Object reality, they are existing things. The input photons stimulate the photopreceptors or photocells in a digirtal camera ,producing electriic current in response. Processing of the generated currents by the brain or camera processors .A film camera uses chemical change on expoure to the photons and further chemical processing to produce the product. The camera and organic visual systems pmaterial source of the photons. The semblance is not equal to or the same as the source , though thr likeness may be called by the saamwe name. It is categorically different.

            Georgina Woodward
            Unlike your model of how reality works, containing bizarre special terms that you have invented, the vision of living organisms is nothing like a camera or a photo. A camera does not identify objects, but the essential aspect of the vision/ consciousness of living organisms is that it is made up of categories and objects.

            For their own survival, living organisms need to identify special objects in their current, moving, surrounding environment, so that the organism can take any appropriate action in response to this information.

            E.g. a food item, or a predator, or a safe hiding place, needs to be identified against a background of other things. This requires that the incoming low-level information, coming from interactions involving photons in the eyes, as well as interactions in the other senses, must be analysed and organised by the organism.

            Even very low-level organisms couldn’t survive if they were not able to, in their own small way, analyse and organise and identify the low-level information continually arriving from the surrounding environment. This analysis, organisation and identification requires the use of logic.

            Vast quantities of unanalysed, unorganised, unidentified, low-level information coming from interactions with the current surrounding environment, is no use to organisms.

            This necessary analysis, organisation and identification of objects can’t be represented by the equations that physicists use to represent laws of nature. The necessary analysis, organisation and identification of objects can only be represented via the use of logical connective symbols.

                Lorraine Ford
                I did not say that a camera is like an organism's visual system because it self identifies objects. Though nowadays AI and camera working together could performsuch a feat. I specified the ways in which a camera is similar but not the same as an organism's visual system. most importsantly the transformation from objective ,material realityt to emrergent, relative, partial semblance of it's surface.

                    Georgina Woodward
                    I do not think it is helpful to calll - what we think -due o analysis of our sensory perception,'realiiy, and also call observation independent,existing things 'reality'. They are categoricallty different and need to be descibed as such. In order to avoid ambiguity and confusion

                      It is not posdsible to discuss iand deconstruct deas, without the language to do so. if all barriers are called walls how do we differentiate a fence from a brick or stone structure

                      Correcting the spelling errors, I tried to correct earlier but ended up worse, as I can no longer edit the post;:
                      I do not think it is helpful to call - what we think -due to analysis of our sensory perception,'realiity, and also call observation independent, existing things 'reality'. They are categoricallty different and need to be descibed as such. In order to avoid ambiguity and confusion

                        Georgina Woodward
                        It is not possible to discuss and deconstruct ideas, without the language to do so. if all barriers are called walls how do we differentiate a fence from a brick or stone structure

                            Georgina Woodward
                            Re your “nowadays AI and camera working together could performsuch a feat”:

                            Do you or don’t you understand the difference between real-world real-life mass (or any other category of information) and the symbolic representation of real-world real-life mass (or any other category of information)?

                            Do you or don’t you understand the difference between real-world real-life mass, and the symbols used to represent real-world real-life mass? E.g. the following line:

                            (m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE

                            consists of symbols, on paper or screen, that represent a particular real-world real-life mass. This same real-world real-life mass could also be symbolically represented using voltages, transistors and circuits in a computer. But the symbols are NOT, I repeat NOT, the actual real-world real-life mass.

                            You continually fail to understand that what is happening in a computer merely uses voltages, transistors and circuits to symbolically represent something else: the symbols (the voltages, transistors and circuits) are NOT, I repeat NOT, the thing they are representing.

                            Your “AI and camera working together” is NOT performing feats that actual real-life eyes are doing, though computer code can potentially be used to REPRESENT (in a general way) what actual real-life eyes are doing.

                            Are you able to understand the distinction?

                                Lorraine Ford
                                I was just saying that AI is able to give the identity of 'learned' images. That means of identification could be combined with a camera producing a photographic product. i did not say the combination works exactly like eyes and vision.

                                    Georgina Woodward
                                    You went on and on and on and on about a rooster.

                                    But I’m guessing that you never noticed the similarity between
                                    the rooster who mistook an oil bottle for a living thing,

                                    and
                                    the masses of people who mistake a box of wires and circuits for something that is conscious? 😊

                                        (m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE Lorraine Ford
                                        i understabd this a stymbolic representation and not an actual mass. One might say,like an autobiography is not a person There is however some element of truth in it.The weiting does not show the whole truth, that makes the person.i think we lost some important distinction by getting rid of the standard kilogram. Mass is related to existence as fermion matter, and hence atomic mass. The effect it has on the environment is observation independent. The other side of the equation is a measurement product. A result obtained because of the unnatural relationship betreen measured and measuring apparatus/ To say that the REPRESENTATION OF emergent vaue and the REPRESENTATION OF intrinsic can be equated and further qualified by IS TRUE is not entirely truthful.

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          (continuing the above merry theme)

                                          The Shtetl-Optimized blog is a good example of a poultry shed where the roosters loudly crow that the box of wires and circuits is conscious.

                                          But just like the failures of analysis of Georgina’s fixated rooster who mistook an oil bottle for a living thing,

                                          these human roosters have fixated on superficial appearances, and have failed to analyse the very basics of how the box of wires and circuits is made to work.

                                          The essence of the box of wires and circuits is that circuits, transistors, and voltages, together with computer programs, are used to represent something else: man-made symbols. In other words, the circuits, transistors, and voltages, together with the computer programs, are themselves man-made symbols used to represent other man-made symbols.

                                          These “other” man-made symbols are things like mathematical equations, number symbols, and symbols for logical connectives (these logical symbols are used to represent (e.g.) analysis, collation, and identification).

                                          But it is not symbols all the way down, turtle upon turtle, with a turtle at the base. At the base is conscious experience, which is not a symbol, but a thing that human beings can only represent with symbols (words and sentences; logical connective symbols, etc.).

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              Ii think the original statement ought to have been (m = 0.511 MeV/c squared) if complying with mainstream notation for mass
                                              It makes mass which is a property related to number of fermion particles the same as a measured energy value though energy has no fermions. Equivalence belongs to particular explanatory framework- namely Rrelativity. Though the James Web telescope calls ito question the Big Bang, consequence of Relativity,. I have called into question the light clock argument thought experiment demonstration of Special Relativity and elsewhere General Relativity. By proposing the sensory data in the Uni-temporal environment are the reason for the appearance of space time and space time continuum, not slices of still existing material present of a reference frame, both are in doubt. in the RICP Framwwork energy is change or potential for change and is a foundatioal quality of the universe as is existence but they are not eqquivalent in what they are.

                                                Lorraine Ford
                                                (continuing my previous comment)

                                                Re the human use of symbols, which were created by human beings, and which are continually used by human beings to represent all aspects of the world, so much so that human beings are barely conscious that they are in fact using tools (symbols) all the time:

                                                Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the human use of symbols to represent the world has been very successful. It works: spacecraft have successfully been sent to Mars.

                                                Re “what Georgina seems to be saying”:
                                                It is difficult to decipher the symbols because the spelling, grammar, punctuation, and written content, is always messy and disorganised, and uses special terms (like “Uni-temporal”, and “still existing material present”), the meaning of which are only known to herself.

                                                    Lorraine Ford
                                                    Uni-Temporal ; the Uni, part of the word means just one , temporal means to do with time. A Unitemporal model has no geometric time dimension. All _existing _hings are at the same and only time of Object, material, Basment level, Source reality. Accounting for the different times seen by different reference frames by allowing the emergent time exception for observers generating the semblance of the Source from recieved input sensory data.
                                                    Still existing is used to indicate the situation that something that has in materially reality happened but contiues to materially exist ( Is not past and consequently No more)) It can therefore be re-experienced again. Time travel and paradoxes arising are a consequence of utilizing an explanation with a time dimension. Not incurred with my explanatory framework.