**5. Scalar fields, processual dynamics, and apeiron (ἄπειρον)**

From the outer view, it looks as if only words are the products of the construction of languages. But a comparison of the language structures betrays something else: The core concepts are all the same. Human bodies all connect in some ways, locally and over time. This processual continuum is reflected in the grammars of all languages. What is shown by the concept of iteration is a psycho-physical responsivity that allows for the experience of living in a human body. That kind of responsivity translates the experience of the world into conceptual visions, including the construction of the concepts of language.

### **5.1 Segment 34, iteration:** *shimmer* **in the** *trembling* **water—not known when ending**

Sensing that my 'mind' is directed to something, does not produce awareness of my consciousness, but rather of the specific something, here signaling an iteration (*shimmering*, and *trembling*). The question of this paper was, and still is: What is it that we call a 'mind'? The response numbers seem to give evidence of some 'background'. But how much does the sensing of background tell us about the 'mind'!?

The usual assumption is that our concepts come about by an underlying consciousness that responds to our experience of the world. In everyday life, we even assume that concepts are given that we use for sorting out things that are relevant to us. But what do we know about this underlying consciousness that 'presents' us with the concepts which we use? I take it that the response numbers in the above example are, or could be, part of an answer. In other words, if the phenomenon of *iteration* is perceived as a relevant example, would it be possible to find out more about being conscious of the phenomenon of iteration which could help to explain the numbers? I take it that the response numbers are themselves a part of an answer to this question because they are manifestations of the body's response as mediated through the nested semiotic systems of 'phenomenal domains' ([21], p. 132).

*A projection between a phenomenal domain A and phenomenal domain B (mental or physical) is not the representation of domain A through B; it is the establishment of an ontological correspondence between A and B. More specifically, these correspondences primarily involve connections of identity, analogy, similarity, causality, change, time, intentionality, space, role, and part-whole, and in some cases also of representation (ibidem).*

As for this 'underlying level of this projection between domain A and phenomenal domain B' we still need to know how, by which means, a human mind accomplishes this projection. To say that there is a causal context still needs to show a causal manifestation, to find a link. The key findings (theses) of the authors whose suggestions I summarized in sections 2 and 3 of this paper link the experience of iteration to bodily properties (cellular, cellular-plus-umwelt), and to phenomena concerning infinite experiences (processual infinity, quantum concepts, apeironἄπειρον as an unlimited causal principle). In Section 4, I gave a glimpse of how Georg Cantor reflected on the concept of infinity—transfinite numbers (endings with a continuous/infinite reproduction), and infinity (the unlimited stepladder of the transfinites).
