012-Motion and Representation
in a video of moving billiard balls, what is actually changing?
we believe the ball is moving, but what we see is the ball at A and B and C
even watching this action on video, or looking at these pictures, you do not see the same ball at all. what you see are different images you think of as balls and you impute that these "balls" moved.
if you are looking at images of the ball in positions as shown below, you have no evidence it's the same ball at all.
there is a representational connection between the balls shown in the picture or video and your idea of a moving singular ball. but watching the video below, NO BALL MOVED! Nor did you see a ball move. what you saw was a bunch of flashing light you took to be a billiard ball moving.
we can model "physical" change with math and physics. but we do not have too. it is a useful way to understand the motion of objects. But all of the assumptions that underlie physics are not physical. quantities, numbers, forces, time these are metaphysical ideas. they are useful in representing or describing the action in physical experience, but they are constructs we impute to describe our physical experiences.
the way we deny that time flows constantly is by appealing to certain kinds of physical apparatus - clocks. we associate days to hours and minutes on clocks. we can still experience a long hour or a short hour. if time were external, then how is this possible?
the model of time is the quantity of changes that occur. we associate a long hour with very few changes. A clock shows regular changes (ticking off the seconds, minutes, quarter hours, hours). this gets associated to our experience and that gives us a regular series of changes. we can associate our ordinary experience of time to clock time to find out if hours are fast or slow. by having multiple ways to represent changes, we have different ways to represent time.
when we model a representation we can do it as an identity
x = x;y
or we can do it as a flow
x -> x;y
What is the difference between these two kinds of representation? One is indicative of logic and the other is indicative of action or change. They are different ways to REPRESENT representation. They are modally different, depending on if YOU want to follow a path of action or apprehend a relationship of identity.
But as a model, representation works either way. These two different ways to show representation are matters of convenience. We choose one over the other because we want to show a switch or flow versus an identity.
Let's consider that everything is an object of awareness, or a group of objects, or a an object which is a representation. And let's also consider that the symbolic way to describe objects, awareness and representations laid out so far is an effective way to construct descriptions of everything. If that is so, we should be able to describe mathematics, letters, language syntax, physics, unicorns, narrative using the symbolic descriptions of representations.
We should be able see how one object is related to another. Because the two objects occur in experience, they must have some relationship to each other. That relationship will be representational. It should be possible to show all relationships between objects with the basis of a theory of representation.
However, one element of this theory has been left out that is crucial to being able to construct robust tautologies. This element is change. How do we model change? And how do we model the kind of change we see in physics? Because we observe and experience change, it should be something we can model that is abstracted to a description that follows the relationships of awareness and representation.
Note, that the symbolic descriptions of representation form maps, or networks of associations. As we become aware of an objects relationships and representations these networks grow. This way of describing objects and representations will be useful later in the development of an AI.
For now, this mapping model is useful in understanding how change can be experienced so that it gives rise to a complex representation of time that is meaningful to us, yet still accounts for the wide diversity of our experiences of time.
One issue with change is how it impacts our awareness. We could say there are really two kinds of representation. When we discuss change and awareness, we naturally make a distinction between a direct awareness and a representative awareness.
Direct awareness can be described as AW:X = X
Representative awareness can be described as AW:X;Y = X;Y
These two are related to each other thus:
AW:X = X ≈ X;Y = AW:X;Y
Just as you can be aware of a thing as itself, you can be aware of a thing as something else. eg a wooden horse ≈ wooden horse;part of a carousel
We can do all sorts of shifting and combining this way. But what we see in experience is an ordinary shifting of awareness from direct awareness, without representation, to an awareness with representation, and back again. Life is a fluid illustration of this shifting of representation and un-represented experience.
This direct awareness could also be illustrated as self-representing.
AW:X;X = X;X = X ≈ X;Y = AW:X;Y
We may consider direct awareness as a special case of representation in general. The case of object self-representation where: X = X;X and AW:X = X =X;X = AW:X;X. It might seem redundant to think of direct awareness as representative awareness, but when we make the distinction between a thing itself versus the thing as a representation of another thing, the distinction makes sense. X as itself -> X;X versus X as Y -> X;Y. The recognition of thing as itself is a recognition of representation.
For illustration purposes, I'm going to leave out object self-representation in most scenarios. However, it may be useful to show object self-representation in instances where we are dealing with lots of direct awareness. For example, meditative states, altered states of consciousness, conditions of non-abstraction, where we can show transitions from representational expressions to direct awareness expressions.
So how could we illustrate change using these symbolic expressions?
To show how change can be modeled it is important to remember that there is no difference between representative and direct awareness. The difference that exists is a difference of representation, not a difference of awareness. Representative awareness is the awareness of an object as another object. Direct awareness is awareness of an object as itself. But Awareness works the same way regardless of whether the objects of awareness are representational structures or not. The function of awareness is always the same. AW:X = X or AW:X;Y = X;Y
To show change, what we experience is a "shifting" of the objects of awareness. However, the function of awareness will be constant as the objects "shift" from unrepresented objects to represented objects. Change is a representation alternating from one object to another. In a simple way, the objects of awareness are switching.
This switching can be symbolically expressed:
AW:X = X ≈ X;Y = AW:X;Y = X;Y ≈ Y = AW:Y
simply X -> X;Y -> Y. This is the expression of change from a direct awareness of an object X to direct awareness of an object Y. X and Y are not identical, but both are equivalent to the representation X;Y. We could say X and Y are representationally identical to X;Y. (note: in this context we can see absolute identity as a representational construct, as a fabrication of a special representational identity. )
What this switching sequence shows is a process of differentiation and identification. I'm showing this switching as taking place, "outside" awareness. But I could show the switching taking place on the awareness side of the equation.
X = AW:X ≈ AW:X;Y = X;Y = AW:X;Y ≈ AW:Y = Y
These expressions of representational switching are identical because AW:X = X and AW:X;Y = X;Y It does not matter if we show the object or Awareness sides of the expressions. Showing the switching on the awareness side of the function shows us how X and X;Y do differ. The difference is a difference of awareness. thus AW:X ≈ AW:X;Y where it would seem to be satisfactory to say X = X;Y
Expressing how a change of representation is a change in awareness, or how a change in awareness of a representation is a change of objects demonstrates how complexity of experience can be managed with these expressions. But it isn't necessary to describe switching of representational objects.
How we measure observable motion is a good example of this process of switching.
For instance, the motion of a billiard ball from one end of a table to another is arranged in our awareness as a variety of identically represented billiard balls. For example, if X is the billiard ball at the left end of the table, and Y the billiard ball at the center of the table and Z the billiard ball at the right end of the table, then we can express the motion of a billiard ball, B, thus:
B -> B;X
B;X = X
X = B;X
B;X -> B
B -> B;Y
B;Y = Y
Y = B;Y
B;Y -> B
B -> B;Z
B;Z = Z
Z = B;Z
B;Z -> B
This is what happens when we watch a video of motion. The motion is interpretated from the frames of video. Motion in 'real life' is being sampled by our vision system. The electrical signaling from the optic nerve is consistent and regular and happens at a certain frequency. It is in this way that we see changes of objects as motion of objects.
If our vision system worked in a different way, our perception of motion would be different. If we did much slower sampling we would see many things that move so fast as to teleport around. And we would see other things that move at visible speeds. For instance, we may notice flowers open and close, shadows move from the motion of the sun, etc, because of a slower sampling rate in our vision system.
This way of looking at changes as switching from one object to a representation to another object, and so on is essentially how we think of a clock. A clock has lots of "positions" at each position it's the same clock. We refer to clocks with their time. eg. "It is one o'clock." or "the clock is at one."
clock at one = clock at one;clock = clock = clock;clock at two = clock at two
clock at one = clock at one;clock -> clock -> clock;clock at two = clock at two
Time, in the ordinary sense, is just the combination of something we see occurring regularly, like a clock, or the motion of the sun, when compared to irregular events, like a running horse. By comparing the two kinds of experience and the changes in both, we can derive the idea of rate or speed.
We do this because the development of representations, especially shared representations, requires that the representations be predictable and consistent. That is the whole point of a clock. An object which regularly produces a change. That regularity of change lets us make associations to objects with irregular changes.
By associating the representational switching of billiard balls and clocks we can derive the rate of ball motion. We make association, or we represent motion and clock movement together because they happen concurrently. Concurrence is a simple associative motive. Just as objects in view (such as billiard balls) get associated together concurrently.
As a conjecture: If how we process awareness and representation were completely different, perhaps taking place in different frequencies, we would still be driven towards predictability and consistency, and regularities in representation. And we would develop other measures for time. In other words, even if our experience were vastly different and alien, we would still be inclined to develop clocks because they aid the development of better representations.
You will note that I eliminated the use of the function of awareness AW:X=X in the examples above because it is a redundant expression of identity. And I eliminated the expression X;X as it is also a redundant expression of identity.