How do we recognize a face?

It can be seen, given the previous articles I have written, that what we call ‘Reality’ is far from a one, unified entity.
Every attribute in our world is composed of an unlimited number of similar and contrasting images, colours, hues, emotions and so on.


Ayad Gharbawi

January 9, 2009 – Damascus, Syria

It can be seen, given the previous articles I have written, that what we call ‘Reality’ is far from a one, unified entity.
Every attribute in our world is composed of an unlimited number of similar and contrasting images, colours, hues, emotions and so on.
This unlimited number of ‘entities’ are, in themselves, unrecognizable, imprecise, indistinct relative to the Observer’s (Ob) mind.
Just as the constituents of any observed entity leaves us with ‘seeing’ an array of voids, nothingnesses, so too, are our entire surroundings and within our own minds, the constituents of the final, produced image is made of a numberless totality of voids.
Thus, the obvious paradox: an unlimited number of unclear, imprecise voids immediately create either an image or an emotion before the Observer’s mind.
Just as we cannot fully ‘view’ an electron, in the quantum physical sense, so too, are the constituents of reality ultimately impossible to define with any precision.
We can only achieve a partial ‘vision’ of reality, given the exact time frame (TF) discussed, and given the other contributing and affecting factors that all mould the ultimate and final image of the image or emotion.
So what do we ‘see’ when we look around us? More precisely, if we look at a chair and we do not focus at any point on the chair, what are we ‘seeing’? Yes, linguistically, we are ‘seeing a chair’. But, language, as ever, proves quite, obstructing, when we discuss subjects such as the Mind, the Self, Vision, and so on.
Now when we, without focusing, ‘look’ at our chair, we see a general abstract vision (gav). Why do I say ‘abstract’? Because, its constituents (were we to focus on the observed object) are completely indistinct, imprecise and inexact to our perception. In other words, they simply do not convey any meaningful, recognizable image to the observing mind. Thus, I use the term ‘abstract’. Next, when we retreat a bit, the image of the chair becomes immediately ‘recognizable’ to our minds and we can say to ourselves, that, ‘I am looking at a chair’.
How can we explain the apparent contradiction, in that on the one hand, from a distance, Observer sees a ‘recognizable’ image, the chair – while on the other hand, we must also admit to the fact that nothing in that observed image can be seen with any precision?
And, of course, as we have seen previously, all our surroundings and all that is within our minds – in other words, the General Abstract Vision (gav) and Mental Abstract Vision (mav) – are all composed of voids.
So how do we ‘recognize’ what we so easily see, or feel as being so and so when there are no links that help us to ‘recognize’ anything, given the abstract essences of our totalities, be they general or mental; abstract visions?
Let us take any (gav) – be it chair, table or whatever.
How do we immediately recognize what we are seeing?
The answer lies in that each observed object has, as we have seen, an unlimited number of abstract constituents.
Within any observed object, are the unlimited numbers of contrasting and similar voids that ultimately create the final, recognizable vision.
Suppose, our Observer (Ob) is looking at a chair and then at a cat, but without focusing on either perceived object.
Let us begin with the chair. The chair is composed of an infinite number of abstract voids, but, and here is the main point, the entirety of these infinite number of chair-related voids ultimately do have in common the Lowest Common Visual Denominator, (LCVD) visually speaking.
It is the ultimate summation and totality of these LCVD that once are immediately viewed, are immediately understood and recognized as being a chair.
The same goes for the cat. The latter has an unlimited number of intrinsically meaningless, indefinite, indistinct points that are abstract.
Yet, within that grand infinite ‘number’ of abstractions, there exists a Lowest Common Visual Denominator, which makes up, ultimately the image of the recognizable cat.
Now, each individual abstract, unrecognizable entity, or constituent, of the image being observed – be it a chair, cat or whatever – has a flavour.

I have deliberately used that term – ‘flavour’ – because our subject is directly connected with the physical world of the quantum reality.
We understand that sub-atomic-particles are deliberately labelled as having ‘flavours’, in order to distinguish them, from other sub-atomic particles.
So too, do the unlimited number of abstract constituents of any image has ‘flavours’.
What does that mean?
That means, exactly as in the understanding of Quantum Physics interpretation of the ‘reality’ of sub-atomic particles, so too, do images (gav) and (mav) contain in their unlimited numbers, an unlimited number of abstract visual and/or mental images of Flavours, and, more importantly, that they do have a Lowest Common Visual Denominator, and which is then taken, and perceived in by the active Mind, and it is this ‘number’ of abstract Lowest Common Visual Denominator that ultimately creates the recognizable form, that the observing mind can recognize.
What is meant by ‘flavours’? From the unlimited number images, perceptions, of the observed face, the observer, given the condition of his/her awareness factor at the moment of observation, plus the degree of intelligence of the observer, allows his mind to retain those images that are the most common with each other.
These unlimited, indefinable number of images that are the most preponderant in the observed person’s face, will allow the Observer (Ob) to create and then to understand/recognize an ‘image’ that has, among its constituents, the most common attributes, the most common physical images of the perceived face.
It is precisely these most common physical facial characteristics that create the recognizable ‘image’ that the Observer can then understand ‘who’ exactly is in front of him.
The same goes for the genes, from the long genetic codes – for not all the codons have a ‘meaning’. As we all know, in fact, a majority of the genetic code has ‘no meaning’. They simply exist there. Only a minority have the meaningful message of information for what cells are to do.
The same goes for the Lowest Common Facial Denominator (LCFD) – the majority of them are unmemorized, and certainly with time, a greater percentage of unrecognized images will take place.
However, the minority of the images that connect the particular face with identity does exist precisely due to the mind recording and identifying these LCFD images.
Clearly, absence and old age increase the dissolution of the connectivity of the LCFD images and thus, the (Ob) begins to be more and more unable to recognize the face in front of him.

Substack subscription form sign up
The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.