I am not as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are (I doubt if anyone is as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are). Actually, I'm not disputing what I think is your main thrust: that we see, not with the eyes, but with the brain. As you may remember from some previous discussions, that is something about which we agree. I'm merely straightening out some details you couldn't be bothered to read about.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Such an "uber-being" doesn't. A 3D world is a theory we make up to understand the patterns exhibited by our qualia. But bare motion is not a theory.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Dymanic said:
I agree. No-one is obsessed with the materialism issue as much as me. That's why I'm trying not to argue about it!
Seeing is a matter of the self/soul and brain and eyes.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
How my vision develops during my childhood is a philosophical question? God ... gap ...
It's a figure of speech. Why does the ultimate immaterial reality jump through such hoops to give us a virtual external reality?
Ultimate Reality: Okay Johnny, now we want to give those people an external reality.
Johnny: Why?
UR: Well, I don't have one and I'm bored to tears. So, how shall we do it?
Johnny: Well ... why don't we give them senses?
UR: Why bother? Why not just construct their minds to include a reality?
Johnny: Don't you think they'll be confused by that? How will they know where it comes from?
UR: They will just know that they are individuated pure being.
Johnny: Come on! They'll never buy that. There has to be an external context.
UR: Hmm. Okay, I get it. So we'll give them senses and then project the phony external context on them.
Johnny: Yes, yes! And then, in an attempt to understand what the heck the sensory input is, they will construct a 3D model.
UR: Why don't we just project 3D directly into their senses?
Johnny: Come on, dude! They'll never fall for that. Anyway, give them something to do. Let them build a model.
UR: Oh, all right. Johnny, you're a pip!
~~ Paul
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Johnny: Hey, UR. Why don't you just go ahead and make this "external reality"? I mean, you've already thought up all the physical laws that physical objects would have to abide by. Wouldn't it be less work to actually build the stupid thing rather than try to trick everyone in to only thinking that it's there?Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
(time passes...)
UR: You know, Johnny, that was an awfully smart question. At first, I thought it was a good idea. But then I started thinking about how to implement telepathy, remote viewing, and homeopathy. I can't quite work them into the natural laws that we came up with.
So let's stick with the virtual reality thing and just kludge up the paranormal stuff. After all, we can miracle those things; who cares if they follow the laws? Then, later, when we've figured out how to amend the laws to accomodate them, we can switch to physical reality and take a vacation.
Johnny: Switch?! How can we possibly do that?
UR: Ah, that's the cool part. The two schemes are equivalent, so when we switch, no one will notice!
UR: You know, Johnny, that was an awfully smart question. At first, I thought it was a good idea. But then I started thinking about how to implement telepathy, remote viewing, and homeopathy. I can't quite work them into the natural laws that we came up with.
So let's stick with the virtual reality thing and just kludge up the paranormal stuff. After all, we can miracle those things; who cares if they follow the laws? Then, later, when we've figured out how to amend the laws to accomodate them, we can switch to physical reality and take a vacation.
Johnny: Switch?! How can we possibly do that?
UR: Ah, that's the cool part. The two schemes are equivalent, so when we switch, no one will notice!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Johnny:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
UR: No, really, the two schemes are logically equivalent, except for the magic part. So the trick is to keep the magic stuff obscure and hard to replicate until we switch over to the physical reality. They won't be able to figure out the laws that pertain to the magic stuff---we'll call it paranormal stuff---because there aren't any laws! Then when we switch, we can slowly let the paranormal stuff become more replicable. If we do it too fast, they'll suspect a trick. Eventually they'll discover those new laws and be real proud of themselves.
Johnny: Are you sure the two schemes are equivalent?
UR: Well, my young friend, if you can figure out a way to tell the difference, I'll buy you a malted.
~~ Paul
Johnny: Are you sure the two schemes are equivalent?
UR: Well, my young friend, if you can figure out a way to tell the difference, I'll buy you a malted.
~~ Paul
A few points.
I've been thinking.
Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.
So, how do we know that this distance (from the observer to the source of this light) even exists? I mean, if a photon says nothing about distance traversed, how do we know that any distance has been traversed?
Some of you gave reasons, such as some regions of light obscure other regions of light as they move across our vision... thus infering that some regions of light must emanate from sources which are closer than others.
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others.
Why would the brain choose to believe it was seeing 3 spatial dimensions instead of 2, particularly when it was only seeing photons giving info of 2?
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?
I've been thinking.
Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.
So, how do we know that this distance (from the observer to the source of this light) even exists? I mean, if a photon says nothing about distance traversed, how do we know that any distance has been traversed?
Some of you gave reasons, such as some regions of light obscure other regions of light as they move across our vision... thus infering that some regions of light must emanate from sources which are closer than others.
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others.
Why would the brain choose to believe it was seeing 3 spatial dimensions instead of 2, particularly when it was only seeing photons giving info of 2?
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: A few points.
Tell me, lifegazer, when you are watching TV, can you look at items in the background and bring them into focus?lifegazer said:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
When one looks at something (IRL) in the foreground, items in the background are often blurry and double-imaged. Focusing on the items in the background will cause items in the foreground to become blurry and double-imaged.lifegazer said:
Does this same effect occur when you watch TV?
(The answer is "no." TV manages to fool you by recreating some of the visual clues that indicate distance, but unless you suspend your disbelief, no one is fooled into thinking there are actual 3D items extending past the screen.)
edited to add: forgot the "why".
People choose to "believe" that the image on the TV are three dimensional for the same reason they choose to "believe" in Godzilla or Alf. It's enterntainment and escapism. It's called "suspension of disbelief"
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Re: A few points.
There is nothing in the photons that provides this information.. Photons only provide information about freqency and intensity.. Nothing about direction, source or distance travelled...
A single photon from a star is indistinguishable from a single photon emitted from a TV, against which, you have pressed your face..
Go back and read page one of this thread..
What books have you read since you said:
Mercutio had some particularly good advice for you..
It is still good advice..
lifegazer said:I've been thinking.
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?
There is nothing in the photons that provides this information.. Photons only provide information about freqency and intensity.. Nothing about direction, source or distance travelled...
A single photon from a star is indistinguishable from a single photon emitted from a TV, against which, you have pressed your face..
Go back and read page one of this thread..
What books have you read since you said:
Mercutio had some particularly good advice for you..
It is still good advice..
Re: A few points.
Dude, enough witht he thinking. IT's obviously not getting you anywhere. Instead, try going out and LEARNING.
I can actually see your post getting stupider the more you "think."
Optics is not only a fascinating field, it's one where the questions you are asking were answered a very, very long time ago.
lifegazer said:I've been thinking.
Dude, enough witht he thinking. IT's obviously not getting you anywhere. Instead, try going out and LEARNING.
I can actually see your post getting stupider the more you "think."
Optics is not only a fascinating field, it's one where the questions you are asking were answered a very, very long time ago.
RussDill
Philosopher
Re: A few points.
Everything about our view of the world is an abstraction. If our senses worked in a literal sense, it would be a very confusing world to our simple brains indeed. However, when we study the external reality, we use tools and methods meant to get literal answers and free us of that level of abstraction.
There are a very large number of ways. Triangulation is one, boucing a photon of a distant object and timing it is another. using measuring tape is yet another. I can go on and on.
Although your TV is 2d, it still contains many of the cues necessary for you to discern depth. Paralax when the camera moves, haze for distant objects, blur for out of focus objects, and the relative size of known objects. However, these relatively few cues are really easy to fool as evidenced in order pre-cg movies involving giants, or little people.
For little people, they try to insert cues that the little people are close to the camera, and the big people are far from the camera, but it is really the opposite on the set.
It doesn't choose, it is hardwired. Also, with stereoscopic vision, we are seeing photons that give info on three dimensions. Some lower organisms may have no sense of depth and are at a disadvantage to organisms that do have a sense of depth.
The brain isn't forced to view 3 spatial dimensions, it is hardwired that way, it is an evolutionary advantage. You might take not that it is impossible for our feeble minds to visualize a 4 dimensional scene (although we can discuss all aspects of such a scene).
Also, I already explained what yields a 3d view, the angle of the eyes, and the offsets of objects. The offset part is pretty easy to confuse to. If you stand in front of a repeating pattern (such as a chainlink fence) and look at something far away, sometimes the repeating pattern of the fence lines up when it shouldn't, really screwing with your depth perception.
Another good example is those posters with all the little silly dots. Stare long enough, and the random patterns in the dots will line up and create a 3d image, fooling your depth perception.
http://www.vision3d.com/sghidden/dino.jpeg
Here are some examples:
http://www.vision3d.com/virtual.shtml
(BTW, the entire vision3d site is for kids that have trouble with 3d vision because of various medical problems. The site is designed to get kids interested and exciting about gaining depth perception and includes a large number of excercises and information intended to be helpful, related article: http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---18156,00.html)
lifegazer said:I've been thinking.
Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.
Everything about our view of the world is an abstraction. If our senses worked in a literal sense, it would be a very confusing world to our simple brains indeed. However, when we study the external reality, we use tools and methods meant to get literal answers and free us of that level of abstraction.
There are a very large number of ways. Triangulation is one, boucing a photon of a distant object and timing it is another. using measuring tape is yet another. I can go on and on.
Although your TV is 2d, it still contains many of the cues necessary for you to discern depth. Paralax when the camera moves, haze for distant objects, blur for out of focus objects, and the relative size of known objects. However, these relatively few cues are really easy to fool as evidenced in order pre-cg movies involving giants, or little people.
For little people, they try to insert cues that the little people are close to the camera, and the big people are far from the camera, but it is really the opposite on the set.
It doesn't choose, it is hardwired. Also, with stereoscopic vision, we are seeing photons that give info on three dimensions. Some lower organisms may have no sense of depth and are at a disadvantage to organisms that do have a sense of depth.
The brain isn't forced to view 3 spatial dimensions, it is hardwired that way, it is an evolutionary advantage. You might take not that it is impossible for our feeble minds to visualize a 4 dimensional scene (although we can discuss all aspects of such a scene).
Also, I already explained what yields a 3d view, the angle of the eyes, and the offsets of objects. The offset part is pretty easy to confuse to. If you stand in front of a repeating pattern (such as a chainlink fence) and look at something far away, sometimes the repeating pattern of the fence lines up when it shouldn't, really screwing with your depth perception.
Another good example is those posters with all the little silly dots. Stare long enough, and the random patterns in the dots will line up and create a 3d image, fooling your depth perception.
http://www.vision3d.com/sghidden/dino.jpeg
Here are some examples:
http://www.vision3d.com/virtual.shtml
(BTW, the entire vision3d site is for kids that have trouble with 3d vision because of various medical problems. The site is designed to get kids interested and exciting about gaining depth perception and includes a large number of excercises and information intended to be helpful, related article: http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---18156,00.html)
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: Re: Re: A few points.
edited to add: No, I lied. It isn't interesting at all. You've been repeating Ian's schtick pretty much since you got here.
Ah, so your "thinking" constitutes repeating what Ian said above? Interesting...lifegazer said:
edited to add: No, I lied. It isn't interesting at all. You've been repeating Ian's schtick pretty much since you got here.
RussDill
Philosopher
Re: Re: Re: A few points.
The mind does not give direction or distance to individual photons. We aren't even aware of individual photons
lifegazer said:
The mind does not give direction or distance to individual photons. We aren't even aware of individual photons
Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.Upchurch said:
The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?
So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: This is hopeless!
Interesting Ian said:
Aw.... that's cute. You're like Ian's little brother, copying everything he does.