The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Kevin

Oct 5, 07 - 6:41 PM

Trying 3 species again...

Sensible species, intellibible species, electronic species

3species

Kevin

Oct 5th, 2007 - 9:10 PM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

I'm amazed! I have actually sent an image from my computer to "the net". And they say you can't teach an old dog "new tricks"!!! To the point...

The three terms, requote "SENSIBLE SPECIES, INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, ELECTRONIC SPECIES", when saved as a text file, contain (as demonstrated by the image, which I was finally able to send from my computer to "the net") 58 BYTES of electronic "information". There are 8 bits to each BYTE of electronic information.

Thus a total of 8x58 = 464 "bits" of electronic information, are required to "show" a comupter image consisting of... let me see ... 34 letters, 4 spaces and 3 commas. But I am not sure that I put any commas in my original text file. I should check.

Let me see... Oh! I originally used semicolons, so the character and space count should be the same, which comes to about 41 "characters". These 41 characters divided into 464 "bits" required about 11 - 12 "bits" per character to demonstrate the image of 1 character (letter, space or punctuation mark) on a computer screen.

And nobody sees those "bits". They are the MEANS BY WHICH one single character, space or punctuation mark appears on a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen, due to the intelligence of whoever designed ASCII and the "Hexadecimal" electronic system for showing all the characters on a modern key pad.

And the above 11-12 "bits" required to demonstrate an image of 1 character or empty space, is without considering all the electronic information which goes into translating 1 character OR pace into all the pixels electronically required to show that character, or white space, on a CRT, when the "hexadecimal" information is TRANSLATED, by machine language, into an image of that character "gunned" onto a television screen.

But you can get an idea of the extra bits and bytes required when you save the IMAGE previously "sent" to this site in bitMAP format. I sent the image as a JPEG image, which had about 32 KBytes (that is 32, 000 BYTES) as an image, in HTML format, which increased the image size of 32 KBYTES to 411 KBYTES, to facilitate its "mark-up" on a computer screen.

Thus 411 thousand bytes were required to show a complex IMAGE on a CRT, but only 58 bytes were required to show the images of the few letters required to show an IMAGE of 3 words. It was the JOING PHOTOGRAPHICS EXPERT GROUP (thus JPEG) which determined a way to REDUCE the great numbers of "bits and bytes" (required to make an IMAGE in "bit-map-FORMAT") down to a smaller sized FORMAT that could be sent over the internet.

In bitmap format, the image I sent requires, let me see about 1.75 megabytes of electronic information! That is 8 times 1 and 3/4 million SPECIFIC BITS of information --- very much like the high number of little tiny cells which make up the sensitive cellular lining on the inside surface of the sphere of our eyes, called "the retina".

Personally, I have no idea of the numbers or sizes of the cells, termed "rods and cones" (from their cellular shapes) which make up a retina and which are responsible for us seeing colors, shapes and shades of light and dark. But cells, though having relatively large variations in size, are generally quite small, in the range of double digit 1/1000's of a millimeter, called microns.

I think an angstrom, by which we measure visible light wavelenghts is, again, 1/thousandth of a micron, although scientists tend to measure in centimeters. So the dictionary definition of an ANGSTROM is a hundred-millionth of a centimeter, which would be a 10 millionth(?) of a millimeter.

Whatever --- really small sizes. Cell dimensions are quite small, but angstroms are much, much smaller.

I know that there are about 4-6 million red cells in a cubic millimetre of blood. White cells which are, perhaps, somewhat less than "double" the size of a red cell are, normally, found in counts of only 5-10 thousand per cubic millimetre of whole blood, although such counts can be as high as 100 thousand per cubic millimetre of blood in very acute infections (normal white blood cells) and in people who have various kinds of leukemia (abnormal kinds of white blood cells).

So what those kinds of cell numbers might translate into for surface areas, which are measured in square millimetres or square-centimeters is beyond my desire to calculate. The point is that you can probably pack quite a few cells (100s? thousands? into a square-millimetre of retina.

And human eyeballs are a lot larger than they appear to be, by simply observing the fractional outer-surface of any given eye which "meets-one's-own-eyes", for what we see of that eye, does not show us the rest of the eye, which is mostly enclosed in and protected-by the eye-socket of an individual.

It would be interesting to find out if there are "mega-cells" (millions of cells) which make up any person's retina, which might correspond to the MEGABYTES of one simple "bitmap" IMAGE.

contd.
KB

Kevin

Oct 5th, 2007 - 9:20 PM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

That would be JOINT photographics expert group, rather than "joinG" photograpic, etc. There was another typo in that message as well. I hope that typo didn't obscure my meaning as much as "sensible IMAGE" obscures Aquinas's meaning of "sensible SPECIES" in Summa I, Q. 85., Article 2.

More to follow, after I find some facts about human retinas (that is if I can).

KB

Kevin

Oct 6th, 2007 - 12:43 AM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

According to someone named Osterberg (1935) there are about 6.4 million cones in the average human retina and between 110 to a 125 million rods in the average human retina.

see "http://webvision.med.utah.edu/index.html" to confirm under FACTS about the Retina.

Hence the "Mega" (millions) of cells which I suspected might contribute to a human being's sight of one IMAGE. Mega cells means megabytes of information, as THE MEANS WHEREBY (a.k.a. "that by which") we see single IMAGES, which are "THAT WHICH" (ie, what) we see.

It is impossible for either "sense" or "intellect" to keep track of millions of bits of information generated by light impinging upon the photoreceptors of our retinas and being sent to the occipital lobes or our brains, just as it is impossible for us to keep track of the megabytes of information which resulted in one image being sent to this site which demonstrated that 58 bytes of electronic SPECIFICS, or electronic-SPECIES were employed to generate 3 written words on a CRT, at this site.

The image which demonstrated the 58 bytes or 464 bits of electronic information, originally consisted of about 1.8 million bytes of electronic information or 8 times 1.8 million (14.4 million) little "bits" --- reduced to 32,000 bytes in JPEG format and "marked up" with about 4 times as much specifically electronic information --- still much less "information" than the original bit map image.

The so-called "sense data" mentioned by Bertrand Russell as WHAT we are "immediately aware of", must be enormous in terms of biophysical analogs of the "bits and bytes" of computing science.

And just as we are not "immediately aware" of the megabytes of information originally required to post one image at this site, we are certainly not "imediately aware" of the input of some 116-131 million cells in our retinas which results in seeing that single IMAGE on a computer screen.

What we see is THE IMAGE and NOT the electronic SPECIES or "specifics" required to generate such an IMAGE on a computer screen which, in turn, becomes the IMAGE which we see on the screen, when biophysics duplicates the physics of television.

Television, computer technology, movies, photography and "Dolby Sound Surround" systems seem to be another example of human art imitating nature. The pixels on a CRT seem to be GOOD ANALOGS of the approximate 120 million cells of our retinas. The responses sent to our occipital lobes make a good ANALOG to all the complexity of computer processing.

The complexity of retina biomechanics is wonderfully detailed at the Utah cite above cited. Take a look if you're interested, for it is certainly an interesting website.

But as far as Aquinas's and Aristotle's "sensible species" is concerned, the bits and bytes of computer processing are more like such "species" than are the actual IMAGES we perceive by means of biophysical analogs of computer "bits/bytes".

The IMAGES seen on CRT's (electronic art) or seen by means of our eyes in nature are THAT WHICH we see. The means by which we see, or by which computer images are "gunned" onto CRTs, are the "species", or specifics which we do not see.

Once again "species sensibilus" translated as "sensible IMAGE" is a mistranslation.

Kevin

Kevin

Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:13 AM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

I can't even keep track of the numbers of letters, spaces and punctuation marks in

SENSIBLE SPECIES; INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES; ELECTRONIC SPECIES (!!!)

On recount, this time I got 51 letter, 3 spaces (clearly wrong should be 4!) and 2 colons for a miscounted total of 56 characters. With the extra "space" character, miscounted, the total is 57 characters which amounts to 8 bits per character, with 8 bits left over. According to ASCII it takes a byte (8 bits) to make one character.

The above is much closer to ASCII theory than the 11-12 bits for each character which I originally miscounted.

With 57 characters and 58 bytes of SPECIFIC electronic information, I'm only "off" by one character which may have been the "wrap" information clearly visible, above, where the text "wraps" after the term "ELECTRONIC". Once again the SPECIES aren't visible, but the IMAGES of letters, spaces, punctuation marks and "wrap" are visible.

Kevin

Kevin

Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:34 AM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

It is truly amazing about the number of little errors that one can pick up when rereading one's own written thoughts.

eg. (1) intelliBible (Freudian slip; in deference to Aquinas's Bible roots?) species should be written intelliGible species in the repost of the original which had no image in it.

eg. (2) I clearly wrote 6 words, but I say I wrote 3 words in the follow-up to the posted image --- at least I think I made that error. I'll check again later.

But the point is that it is a fairly easy error to mistranslate "sensible species" as "sensible IMAGE" in a philosophical culture where that error is a "philosophical standard" among all of Cartesian rationalists, British Empiricists and Kantian so-called "critical idealists".

Mistakenly saying that 6 words are 3 words is an easy error to make when one is actually thinking of 3 KINDS of "species", to wit, (1) sensible, (2) intelligible and (3) electronic KINDS of "species". So I must have meant 3 "ideas" and not 3 words.

I'm going to check again to see if I actually wrote 3 words, but really meant 3 "ideas" of kinds of species, expressed by means of 6 words.

Kevin

Kevin

Kevin

Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:42 AM

Re: Trying 3 species again...

CHECK:
The three terms, requote "SENSIBLE SPECIES, INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, ELECTRONIC SPECIES", when saved as a text file...

YEP, although 3 "complex terms" would be acceptable to Aristotle. Still there were 6 simple terms or, in other words 6 words.

"Little errors" are easy to make.

Kevin

Author	Comment
Kevin Oct 5, 07 - 6:41 PM	Trying 3 species again... Sensible species, intellibible species, electronic species 3species Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 5th, 2007 - 9:10 PM	Re: Trying 3 species again... I'm amazed! I have actually sent an image from my computer to "the net". And they say you can't teach an old dog "new tricks"!!! To the point... The three terms, requote "SENSIBLE SPECIES, INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, ELECTRONIC SPECIES", when saved as a text file, contain (as demonstrated by the image, which I was finally able to send from my computer to "the net") 58 BYTES of electronic "information". There are 8 bits to each BYTE of electronic information. Thus a total of 8x58 = 464 "bits" of electronic information, are required to "show" a comupter image consisting of... let me see ... 34 letters, 4 spaces and 3 commas. But I am not sure that I put any commas in my original text file. I should check. Let me see... Oh! I originally used semicolons, so the character and space count should be the same, which comes to about 41 "characters". These 41 characters divided into 464 "bits" required about 11 - 12 "bits" per character to demonstrate the image of 1 character (letter, space or punctuation mark) on a computer screen. And nobody sees those "bits". They are the MEANS BY WHICH one single character, space or punctuation mark appears on a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen, due to the intelligence of whoever designed ASCII and the "Hexadecimal" electronic system for showing all the characters on a modern key pad. And the above 11-12 "bits" required to demonstrate an image of 1 character or empty space, is without considering all the electronic information which goes into translating 1 character OR pace into all the pixels electronically required to show that character, or white space, on a CRT, when the "hexadecimal" information is TRANSLATED, by machine language, into an image of that character "gunned" onto a television screen. But you can get an idea of the extra bits and bytes required when you save the IMAGE previously "sent" to this site in bitMAP format. I sent the image as a JPEG image, which had about 32 KBytes (that is 32, 000 BYTES) as an image, in HTML format, which increased the image size of 32 KBYTES to 411 KBYTES, to facilitate its "mark-up" on a computer screen. Thus 411 thousand bytes were required to show a complex IMAGE on a CRT, but only 58 bytes were required to show the images of the few letters required to show an IMAGE of 3 words. It was the JOING PHOTOGRAPHICS EXPERT GROUP (thus JPEG) which determined a way to REDUCE the great numbers of "bits and bytes" (required to make an IMAGE in "bit-map-FORMAT") down to a smaller sized FORMAT that could be sent over the internet. In bitmap format, the image I sent requires, let me see about 1.75 megabytes of electronic information! That is 8 times 1 and 3/4 million SPECIFIC BITS of information --- very much like the high number of little tiny cells which make up the sensitive cellular lining on the inside surface of the sphere of our eyes, called "the retina". Personally, I have no idea of the numbers or sizes of the cells, termed "rods and cones" (from their cellular shapes) which make up a retina and which are responsible for us seeing colors, shapes and shades of light and dark. But cells, though having relatively large variations in size, are generally quite small, in the range of double digit 1/1000's of a millimeter, called microns. I think an angstrom, by which we measure visible light wavelenghts is, again, 1/thousandth of a micron, although scientists tend to measure in centimeters. So the dictionary definition of an ANGSTROM is a hundred-millionth of a centimeter, which would be a 10 millionth(?) of a millimeter. Whatever --- really small sizes. Cell dimensions are quite small, but angstroms are much, much smaller. I know that there are about 4-6 million red cells in a cubic millimetre of blood. White cells which are, perhaps, somewhat less than "double" the size of a red cell are, normally, found in counts of only 5-10 thousand per cubic millimetre of whole blood, although such counts can be as high as 100 thousand per cubic millimetre of blood in very acute infections (normal white blood cells) and in people who have various kinds of leukemia (abnormal kinds of white blood cells). So what those kinds of cell numbers might translate into for surface areas, which are measured in square millimetres or square-centimeters is beyond my desire to calculate. The point is that you can probably pack quite a few cells (100s? thousands? into a square-millimetre of retina. And human eyeballs are a lot larger than they appear to be, by simply observing the fractional outer-surface of any given eye which "meets-one's-own-eyes", for what we see of that eye, does not show us the rest of the eye, which is mostly enclosed in and protected-by the eye-socket of an individual. It would be interesting to find out if there are "mega-cells" (millions of cells) which make up any person's retina, which might correspond to the MEGABYTES of one simple "bitmap" IMAGE. contd. KB Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 5th, 2007 - 9:20 PM	Re: Trying 3 species again... That would be JOINT photographics expert group, rather than "joinG" photograpic, etc. There was another typo in that message as well. I hope that typo didn't obscure my meaning as much as "sensible IMAGE" obscures Aquinas's meaning of "sensible SPECIES" in Summa I, Q. 85., Article 2. More to follow, after I find some facts about human retinas (that is if I can). KB Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 6th, 2007 - 12:43 AM	Re: Trying 3 species again... According to someone named Osterberg (1935) there are about 6.4 million cones in the average human retina and between 110 to a 125 million rods in the average human retina. see "http://webvision.med.utah.edu/index.html" to confirm under FACTS about the Retina. Hence the "Mega" (millions) of cells which I suspected might contribute to a human being's sight of one IMAGE. Mega cells means megabytes of information, as THE MEANS WHEREBY (a.k.a. "that by which") we see single IMAGES, which are "THAT WHICH" (ie, what) we see. It is impossible for either "sense" or "intellect" to keep track of millions of bits of information generated by light impinging upon the photoreceptors of our retinas and being sent to the occipital lobes or our brains, just as it is impossible for us to keep track of the megabytes of information which resulted in one image being sent to this site which demonstrated that 58 bytes of electronic SPECIFICS, or electronic-SPECIES were employed to generate 3 written words on a CRT, at this site. The image which demonstrated the 58 bytes or 464 bits of electronic information, originally consisted of about 1.8 million bytes of electronic information or 8 times 1.8 million (14.4 million) little "bits" --- reduced to 32,000 bytes in JPEG format and "marked up" with about 4 times as much specifically electronic information --- still much less "information" than the original bit map image. The so-called "sense data" mentioned by Bertrand Russell as WHAT we are "immediately aware of", must be enormous in terms of biophysical analogs of the "bits and bytes" of computing science. And just as we are not "immediately aware" of the megabytes of information originally required to post one image at this site, we are certainly not "imediately aware" of the input of some 116-131 million cells in our retinas which results in seeing that single IMAGE on a computer screen. What we see is THE IMAGE and NOT the electronic SPECIES or "specifics" required to generate such an IMAGE on a computer screen which, in turn, becomes the IMAGE which we see on the screen, when biophysics duplicates the physics of television. Television, computer technology, movies, photography and "Dolby Sound Surround" systems seem to be another example of human art imitating nature. The pixels on a CRT seem to be GOOD ANALOGS of the approximate 120 million cells of our retinas. The responses sent to our occipital lobes make a good ANALOG to all the complexity of computer processing. The complexity of retina biomechanics is wonderfully detailed at the Utah cite above cited. Take a look if you're interested, for it is certainly an interesting website. But as far as Aquinas's and Aristotle's "sensible species" is concerned, the bits and bytes of computer processing are more like such "species" than are the actual IMAGES we perceive by means of biophysical analogs of computer "bits/bytes". The IMAGES seen on CRT's (electronic art) or seen by means of our eyes in nature are THAT WHICH we see. The means by which we see, or by which computer images are "gunned" onto CRTs, are the "species", or specifics which we do not see. Once again "species sensibilus" translated as "sensible IMAGE" is a mistranslation. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:13 AM	Re: Trying 3 species again... I can't even keep track of the numbers of letters, spaces and punctuation marks in SENSIBLE SPECIES; INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES; ELECTRONIC SPECIES (!!!) On recount, this time I got 51 letter, 3 spaces (clearly wrong should be 4!) and 2 colons for a miscounted total of 56 characters. With the extra "space" character, miscounted, the total is 57 characters which amounts to 8 bits per character, with 8 bits left over. According to ASCII it takes a byte (8 bits) to make one character. The above is much closer to ASCII theory than the 11-12 bits for each character which I originally miscounted. With 57 characters and 58 bytes of SPECIFIC electronic information, I'm only "off" by one character which may have been the "wrap" information clearly visible, above, where the text "wraps" after the term "ELECTRONIC". Once again the SPECIES aren't visible, but the IMAGES of letters, spaces, punctuation marks and "wrap" are visible. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:34 AM	Re: Trying 3 species again... It is truly amazing about the number of little errors that one can pick up when rereading one's own written thoughts. eg. (1) intelliBible (Freudian slip; in deference to Aquinas's Bible roots?) species should be written intelliGible species in the repost of the original which had no image in it. eg. (2) I clearly wrote 6 words, but I say I wrote 3 words in the follow-up to the posted image --- at least I think I made that error. I'll check again later. But the point is that it is a fairly easy error to mistranslate "sensible species" as "sensible IMAGE" in a philosophical culture where that error is a "philosophical standard" among all of Cartesian rationalists, British Empiricists and Kantian so-called "critical idealists". Mistakenly saying that 6 words are 3 words is an easy error to make when one is actually thinking of 3 KINDS of "species", to wit, (1) sensible, (2) intelligible and (3) electronic KINDS of "species". So I must have meant 3 "ideas" and not 3 words. I'm going to check again to see if I actually wrote 3 words, but really meant 3 "ideas" of kinds of species, expressed by means of 6 words. Kevin Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Oct 6th, 2007 - 1:42 AM	Re: Trying 3 species again... CHECK: The three terms, requote "SENSIBLE SPECIES, INTELLIGIBLE SPECIES, ELECTRONIC SPECIES", when saved as a text file... YEP, although 3 "complex terms" would be acceptable to Aristotle. Still there were 6 simple terms or, in other words 6 words. "Little errors" are easy to make. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website