diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'essays/dissociation_physics.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | essays/dissociation_physics.tex | 40 |
1 files changed, 27 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/essays/dissociation_physics.tex b/essays/dissociation_physics.tex index 4fad12d..0fbab07 100644 --- a/essays/dissociation_physics.tex +++ b/essays/dissociation_physics.tex @@ -13,34 +13,38 @@ Throughout much of the discussion, we have to assume that the human physicist ex Let $T$ indicate tactile and $V$ indicate visual. Let the tactile sensation of open eyes be $T_1$, and of closed eyes be $T_2$. Now anything that can be seen with closed eyes---from total blackness, to the multicolored patterns produced by waving the spread fingers of both hands between closed eyes and direct sunlight---can no doubt be duplicated for open eyes. Closed-eye sights are a subset of open-eye sights. Thus, let sights seen only with open eyes be $V_1$, and sights seen with either open or closed eyes be $V_2$: If there are sights seen only with closed eyes, they will be $V_3$; we want disjoint classes. We are interested in the temporal concurrence of sensations. Combining our definitions with information about our present world, we find there are no intrasensory concurrences (eyes open and closed at the same time). Further, our change will not produce intrasensory concurrences, because each realm will remain coherent. Thus, we will drop them from our discussion. There remain the intersensory concurrences, and four can be imagined; let us denote them by the ordered pairs $(T_1, V_1)$, $(T_1, V_2)$, $(T_2, V_1)$, $(T_2, V_2)$. In reality, some concurrences are permitted and others are forbidden, Let us designate each ordered pair as permitted or forbidden, using the following notation. Consider a rectangular array of \enquote{places} such that the place in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} row and $j$\textsuperscript{th} column corresponds to $(T_i, V_j)$, and assign a $p$ or $f$ (as appropriate) to each place. Then the following state array is a description of regularities in our present world. +\vskip 0.25em \begin{equation} \begin{pmatrix} p & p \\ f & p \end{pmatrix} \end{equation} +\vskip 0.25em -So far as temporal successions of concurrences (within the present world) are concerned, any permitted concurrence may succeed any other permitted concurrence. The succession of a concurrence by itself is excluded, meaning that at the moment, a $V_1$, is defined as lasting from the time the eyes open until the time they next close. +\slop{So far as temporal successions of concurrences (within the present world) are concerned, any permitted concurrence may succeed any other permitted concurrence. The succession of a concurrence by itself is excluded, meaning that at the moment, a $V_1$, is defined as lasting from the time the eyes open until the time they next close.} -We have said that our topic is a certain change; we can now indicate more precisely what this change is. As long as we have a $2\times2$ array, there are 16 ways it can be filled with $p$'s and $f$'s. That is, there are 16 imaginable states. The changes we are interested in, then, are specific changes from the present state (\ref{physpresent}) to another state such as \ref{physafter}. +We have said that our topic is a certain change; we can now indicate more precisely what this change is. As long as we have a $2\times2$ array, there are 16 ways it can be filled with $p$'s and $f$'s. That is, there are 16 imaginable states. The changes we are interested in, then, are specific changes from the present state (\ref{physpresent}) to another state (such as \ref{physafter}). -\vskip 1em{\centering\parbox{0.9\textwidth}{\centering - \parbox{1.5in}{ +{\Huge i need to align theses} + +\vskip 1em +{\parbox[c][2in][c]{1.5in}{ + \raggedleft \begin{equation} \label{physpresent} - \begin{pmatrix} + \begin{matrix} p & p \\ f & p - \end{pmatrix} + \end{matrix} \end{equation}} - \parbox{1.5in}{\begin{equation} + \parbox[c][2in][c]{1.5in}{\begin{equation} \label{physafter} - \begin{pmatrix} + \left(\begin{matrix} p & f \\ p & p - \end{pmatrix} - \end{equation}}\par} - \par} + \end{matrix}\right) + \end{equation}}} \vskip 1em However, we want to exclude some changes. The change that changes nothing is excluded. We aren't interested in changing to a state having only $f$'s, which amounts to blindness. A change to a state with a row or column of $f$'s leaves one sight or touch completely forbidden (a person becomes blind to open-eye sights); such an \enquote{impairment} is of little interest. Of the remaining changes, one merely leaves a formerly permitted concurrence forbidden: closed-eye sights can no longer be seen with open eyes. The rest of the changes are the ones most relevant to perception-dissociation. They are changes in the place of the one $f$; the change to the state having only $p$'s; and finally @@ -60,9 +64,19 @@ However, we want to exclude some changes. The change that changes nothing is exc }} \vskip 1em -In general, we speak of a partition of a sensory realm into disjoint classes of perceptions, so that the two partitions are $[T_j]$ and $[V_j]$. The number of classes in a partition, m for touch and n for sight, is its detailedness. The detailedness of the product partition $[T_j]\times [V_j]$ is written $m\times n$. This detailedness virtually determines the $(mn)^2$ imaginable states, although it doesn't determine their qualitative content. Now suppose one change is followed by another, so that we can speak of a change series. It is important to realize that by our definitions so far, a change series is not a conposition of functions; it is a temporal phenomenon in which each state lasts for a finite time. (A function would be a general rule for rewriting states. A $2\times2$ rule might say, rotate the state clockwise one place, from \ref{physegcwa} to \ref{physegcwb}. +In general, we speak of a partition of a sensory realm into disjoint classes of perceptions, so that the two partitions are $[T_j]$ and $[V_j]$. The number of classes in a partition, m for touch and n for sight, is its detailedness. The detailedness of the product partition $[T_j]\times [V_j]$ is written $m\times n$. This detailedness virtually determines the $(mn)^2$ imaginable states, although it doesn't determine their qualitative content. Now suppose one change is followed by another, so that we can speak of a change series. It is important to realize that by our definitions so far, a change series is not a composition of functions; it is a temporal phenomenon in which each state lasts for a finite :waittime. (A function would be a general rule for rewriting states. A $2\times2$ rule might say, rotate the state clockwise one place, from \ref{physegcwa} to \ref{physegcwb}. -\vskip 1em {\centering\parbox{0.9\textwidth}{\centering\parbox{1.25in}{\raggedleft\begin{equation}\label{physegcwa}\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}\end{equation}}\parbox{1.25in}{\begin{equation}\label{physegcwb}\begin{pmatrix}c & a \\ d & b\end{pmatrix}\end{equation}}}} \vskip 1em +\begin{wraptext} + \begin{equation}\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\end{equation} + \label{physegcwa} +\end{wraptext} + +\begin{wraptext} + \label{physegcwb} + \begin{equation} + \left(\begin{matrix}c & a \\ d & b\end{matrix}\right) + \end{equation} +\end{wraptext} But a composition of rules would not be a temporal series; it would be a new rule.) Returning to the sorting of changes, we always exclude the no-change changes, and states having only $f$'s. We are unenthusiastic about \enquote{impairing}changes, changes to states with rows or columns of $f$'s. Of the remaining changes, some merely forbid, replacing $p$'s with $f$'s. The rest of the changes are the most perception-dissociating ones. |