About perception...

[Kizmet]

Not really.

It was a rhetorical question. Designed to make clever people think about the subject so I can see what they think.

Alright... I'll come clean. There is more to the design than that.

The question is also.. what does the technical mind do with a question it can't possibly answer?

Speculate?
Ignore?
Ridicule?

How does that reaction translate into other aspect of their personality and their lives?

Are more creative people more speculative?

 

[Kizmet]

it's a fucking pointless question that is inherently unanswerable,

Some of the best questions give you answers about the person answering it as well. And also those that don't.

 

[revol68]

Some of the best questions give you answers about the person answering it as well. And also those that don't.

More cod theorising, are you in occupational psychology or human resources management by any chance?

 

[Kizmet]

More cod theorising, are you in occupational psychology or human resources management by any chance?

Nah. I'm in east london, but thanks for asking.

(You do realise that I've effectively called you an uncreative little fuck with a mind incapable of dealing with subjects outside its limited framework, don't you?

Although I just probably just added the little fuck bit for effect.. since I'm guessing that's what you are. )

 

[revol68]

Nah. I'm in east london, but thanks for asking.

(You do realise that I've effectively called you an uncreative little fuck with a mind incapable of dealing with subjects outside its limited framework, don't you?

Although I just probably just added the little fuck bit for effect.. since I'm guessing that's what you are. )

yes, I did pick up on that, how very subtle it was too.

Might it ever occur to you that the response reflects the fact that the person is intelligent enough to see through the question as a load of balls. Being creative isn't some daft notion of having your mind open to everything, someone who is unable to distinguish between creative speculation and thought experiments and inane bullshit isn't likely to create anything of any worth.

Karl Marx was the greatest thinker of the past 2000 years and he certainly had short shrift for such speculative inane shit.

 

[Kizmet]

yes, I did pick up on that, how very subtle it was too.

You walked into it... or rather stumbled.

Might it ever occur to you that the response reflects the fact that the person is intelligent enough to see through the question as a load of balls.

Yes. I think those people would ignore the thread completely.

Taking the time to comment on it? Different motivation, innit.

The question is clearly not rubbish, is it. You may not be interested.. but it's just a question.

Being creative isn't some daft notion of having your mind open to everything, someone who is unable to distinguish between creative speculation and thought experiments and inane bullshit isn't likely to create anything of any worth.

Creative Speculation? Hehe. It looks like you just strung a whole load of words together in the hope that they made sense. You didn't, did you?

Karl Marx was the greatest thinker of the past 2000 years and he certainly had short shrift for such speculative inane shit.

I suspect he was little busy for that. I'm not. And, clearly, neither are you.

 

[revol68]

Yes, creative speculation, what a crazy piece of jargon that is, how could anyone grasp what it means.

I'm not busy, I am however clever enough to realise that your question would only keep a simpleton busy, which isn't the same as me engagin you in a discussion as to why such questions are inane shit.

 

[Kizmet]

Yes, creative speculation, what a crazy piece of jargon that is, how could anyone grasp what it means.

By ignoring the tautoloy.

I'm not busy, I am however clever enough to realise that your question would only keep a simpleton busy, which isn't the same as me engagin you in a discussion as to why such questions are inane shit.

The question would keep a visualist busy visualising.
What kind of person would be kept busy by ridiculing?

Yes. A ridiculous one.

 

[revol68]

By ignoring the tautoloy

So you think all speculation is creative, god help you.

 

[samk]

Many things we can perceive we can perceive by several senses, or by instruments other than our senses. If there is already overlap between senses, if we had some additional ways of perceiving the world, we could expect it to overlap our existing perceptions

 

[Kizmet]

So you think all speculation is creative, god help you.

Speculating is creating.

It's clearly not me that needs the help.

 

[Kizmet]

Many things we can perceive we can perceive by several senses, or by instruments other than our senses. If there is already overlap between senses, if we had some additional ways of perceiving the world, we could expect it to overlap our existing perceptions

Unless we filter/ filtered it out because it has become increasingly less useful to us.

 

[revol68]

Speculating is creating.

It's clearly not me that needs the help.

You seem to have problems with the fluidity and contextual nature of language.

 

[Kizmet]

You seem to have problems with the fluidity and contextual nature of language.

Given that you called it a brain fart I was merely commenting on your verbal diarrhoea.

Language may be fluid but you seem to be pouring it down the toilet.

 

[joe_infinity]

this is an interesting suggestion about how a being in a higher dimension would perceive lower dimensions:



it isnt about seeing the entire electromagnetic spectrum at once, it's about seeing lower dimensions from a higher-dimensional vantage point.

By extension from this video, it would follow that a 4th dimensional being could see the entire contents of the human body, all at once

 

[Jonti]

Visible Human Server

These 3D datasets originate from two bodies that were given to science, frozen and digitized into 1 mm horizontally spaced slices (0.33 mm for the female body) by the University of Colorado (Dr. Victor Spitzer) under contract of the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland. The total volume of all slices represents a size of 13 GB of data for the male dataset and 40 GB for the female dataset. The labeling data used by these applications has been licensed from GSM.

http://visiblehuman.epfl.ch

 

[Kizmet]

this is an interesting suggestion about how a being in a higher dimension would perceive lower dimensions:



it isnt about seeing the entire electromagnetic spectrum at once, it's about seeing lower dimensions from a higher-dimensional vantage point.

Yeah.. in the same way that we see the 4th dimension - time - in slices. But that led me to thinking about how that might look.

 

[samk]

http://visiblehuman.epfl.ch

You might also like brainmaps.org

 

[joe_infinity]

Yeah.. in the same way that we see the 4th dimension - time - in slices. But that led me to thinking about how that might look.

yes exactly we only see the present moment from our pov but a being in a higher dimension would see all of time at once, every present moment from the beginning of time to the end, so whereas we see time as flowing, from the higher perspective it looks like a frozen expanse

on another forum I read a physics graduate who said that even if we could see the entire electromagnetic spectrum at once:

"Looking at the sky with different wavelengths would definitely provide different visual input, but nothing nearly as amazing as you expect. Perhaps a star might twinkle a subtly different shade of not-quite-white, or at best you'd see some faint nebulae where you previously couldn't. But you wouldn't see wonderful new things, just more of the same that wasn't there before"

 

[Kizmet]

http://visiblehuman.epfl.ch

Are you pointing out that 'slices' is how a human would look to a being in 2 dimensions?

Or that viewing the entire contents of the human body at once is already possible?

It's pretty cool.. but what point are you making?

 

[Kizmet]

yes exactly we only see the present moment from our pov but a being in a higher dimension would see all of time at once, every present moment from the beginning of time to the end, so whereas we see time as flowing, from the higher perspective it looks like a frozen expanse

It's pretty cool that, innit? They would view lengths of time in the same way we view lengths of string or pasta. Their world would be composed of objects made up of length, breadth, depth and duration. And maybe also probability.

on another forum I read a physics graduate who said that even if we could see the entire electromagnetic spectrum at once:

"Looking at the sky with different wavelengths would definitely provide different visual input, but nothing nearly as amazing as you expect. Perhaps a star might twinkle a subtly different shade of not-quite-white, or at best you'd see some faint nebulae where you previously couldn't. But you wouldn't see wonderful new things, just more of the same that wasn't there before"

In the care of the night sky that's true.. but what about the world around us.. if you could see the energy of an object as well as all its other details?

Which takes me back to the original question. If you saw the universe as a factor of the energy of it's molecules.. how would you know where one object began and another ended?

 

[kyser_soze]

If every molecule in the universe appeared to us as factor of it's energy.. (for simple examples sake - as a point of light varying in size and intensity)... what would we see?

Speculative technical question that has been answered by science several times on the thread. It's like asking what the world would look like if we perceived different frequencies of light...indeed, I would guess that the kind of images you get from IR goggles would be pretty close to the kind of thing you're talking about - if you were looking at a human, you'd seen denser, more intense images at the points where most energy was being used - the brain, digestion, heart etc, and these would change depending on the activity.

Easy question you could have answered yourself if you'd spent 10 minutes thinking about it really - 'What would I see if my eyes worked in a different way'

Also, and FWIW, Iain M Banks explains the whole thing about how higher dimensional beings would 'see' ouruniverse in Excession, using the 2D people example.

 

[Kizmet]

Speculative technical question that has been answered by science several times on the thread.

If that was really the case you wouldn't have answered it.

And I liked your answer, it makes sense and gives food for thought, so I'm glad you did.

It's like asking what the world would look like if we perceived different frequencies of light...indeed, I would guess that the kind of images you get from IR goggles would be pretty close to the kind of thing you're talking about - if you were looking at a human, you'd seen denser, more intense images at the points where most energy was being used - the brain, digestion, heart etc, and these would change depending on the activity.

Those images overlaid with what we already see.. plus magnetic fields overlaying everything.. fluctuating, undulating. How would that affect the way we would interact with our world?

Easy question you could have answered yourself if you'd spent 10 minutes thinking about it really - 'What would I see if my eyes worked in a different way'

I know that. But what if I would rather spend those 10 minutes talking to people about it?

Also, and FWIW, Iain M Banks explains the whole thing about how higher dimensional beings would 'see' ouruniverse in Excession, using the 2D people example.

I've seen a few decent different visualisations.. but they all make assumptions or base things on examples of lower dimension. what is Excession?

 

[kyser_soze]

Those images overlaid with what we already see.. plus magnetic fields overlaying everything.. fluctuating, undulating. How would that affect the way we would interact with our world?

Yeah, I've thought about that on more than a few occassions, wondering if it would be better/cooler to have them all on at once for a 'total perception' thing, or be able to switch different 'views' on and off.

Excession is Iain M Banks 5th novel of The Culture

 

[Kizmet]

Yeah, I've thought about that on more than a few occassions, wondering if it would be better/cooler to have them all on at once for a 'total perception' thing, or be able to switch different 'views' on and off.

Were we to surgically/technically introduce those sense in some ways then you'd have to switch between 'views' otherwise you just couldn't cope with the input!

I guess if we 'evolved' organs that could detect all that stuff then we'd have evolved a correspondingly more powerful brain that would probably filter the input from those organs in much the same way as it does for our main 5 sense now.

The filtering point is quite interesting because eventually we lose complicated senses/organs that don't provide a genuine advantage evolutionarily. Other creatures on earth 'see' differently.. isn't it possible we had those organs and lost them over time? Or even more interestingly still have them but filter much of their input out unconsciously because it doesn't provide a massive advantage?

 

[Jonti]

Richard Feynman talks about light