If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "We don't actually see things at all; we hallucinate them in detail from low-resolution cues... whoa dude, I am so high"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting, information theory, visual systems, sensory cue, Ray Kurzweil, .th, Lily Tomlin, writing systems, flash video  
•       •       •

4435 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Nov 2012 at 3:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 08:18:27 PM
Natch. The world we live in is the model we maintain inside our heads that corresponds to the external world to a greater or lesser degree.

/in some persons, to a much lesser degree
 
2012-11-18 09:46:03 PM

Sgygus: Natch.


cockpunch.jpg
 
2012-11-19 12:24:41 AM
We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green
 
2012-11-19 12:33:48 AM
i took the blue pill. the steak tastes good.
 
2012-11-19 12:38:24 AM
Anyone who trusts their own eyes doesn't really understand how eyes work or how our brains interpret those signals and combine them with its current 3d environment map. It's a significantly flawed system that results in regular errors. And one of the most error prone function is the depth perception and sizing system. I'm looking at you, Mr. I saw a black house cat and reported a 400lb black jaguar to police guy.
 
2012-11-19 12:48:51 AM

vossiewulf: Anyone who trusts their own eyes doesn't really understand how eyes work or how our brains interpret those signals and combine them with its current 3d environment map. It's a significantly flawed system that results in regular errors. And one of the most error prone function is the depth perception and sizing system. I'm looking at you, Mr. I saw a black house cat and reported a 400lb black jaguar to police guy.


I think most people trust their own eyes most of the time, even when they're familiar with the basics of what's going on.

I mean, do you carefully shuffle around all the time with your hands out in front of you, just in case?
 
2012-11-19 01:07:59 AM
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration - that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather
 
2012-11-19 01:08:29 AM

Relatively Obscure: I mean, do you carefully shuffle around all the time with your hands out in front of you, just in case?


I meant in reference to people who saw Bigfoot/ghosts/UFOs/Elvis and are absolutely sure because they saw it with their own eyes. If you see something weird, it's likely in the extreme that your visual system just went wonky, not that you saw sasquatch riding a triceratops.
 
2012-11-19 01:10:12 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration - that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather


I miss Bill.
 
2012-11-19 02:35:24 AM
Merrily, merrily, merrily...
 
Skr
2012-11-19 03:48:38 AM
This text is orange.
 
2012-11-19 04:13:30 AM
You are all figments of my tortured imagination.

Especially you. You're extra fictitious.
 
2012-11-19 04:21:58 AM
chrispetersen25.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-19 04:28:54 AM

cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green


That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.
 
2012-11-19 04:44:29 AM
I got bored of solipsism a long time ago.
 
2012-11-19 04:49:37 AM

thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.


The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"
 
2012-11-19 04:57:10 AM
These are like the guys who say certain animals aren't actually that color, just an illusion. Perception is reality, kids. If it ain't, it's the best we got.
 
2012-11-19 04:58:14 AM

Ishkur: I got bored of solipsism a long time ago.


Yeah but nihilism is the shiat...well maybe..probably no...argh it has no meaning!
 
2012-11-19 05:09:22 AM
Here's what's going on:

YES -- It is possible that we may be completely wrong about everything. We do not possess the ability to jump outside our skulls - outside human perception, reasoning, and comprehension of the natural world and its faculties - and truly observe the Universe on a completely impartial level. Everything we know comes to us through biased human filters. Even things we think are universal absolutes, like logic, math and physics - they're all human constructs: Human tools created by humans and used by humans to understand human perceptions of the Universe in human terms that humans can understand, for the benefit of humanity.

So we may be way off with all of this and never know it. The true answers may never be knowable, but that's okay because our current observations are the best guesses we got. Just because we can't count to infinity is no reason to stop counting.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:15 AM

Skr: This text is orange.


don't you mean green?


/thanks Doc
 
2012-11-19 05:32:54 AM

Bonzo_1116: thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.

The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"


In that thought, does eye color play any role?
 
2012-11-19 05:35:30 AM

cman: Bonzo_1116: thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.

The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"

In that thought, does eye color play any role?


No, it's the functional pigments in your retina, not the ones that decorate your iris.
 
2012-11-19 05:41:28 AM

Bonzo_1116: cman: Bonzo_1116: thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.

The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"

In that thought, does eye color play any role?

No, it's the functional pigments in your retina, not the ones that decorate your iris.


Danke
 
2012-11-19 05:49:55 AM

cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same?


Exactly? No. Healthy eyes are going to have very minor variations. Very minor.

As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

Only is one of the people involved has color blindness. 650nm is 650nm.
 
2012-11-19 06:01:09 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration - that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather


To be fair, he could also have simply understood the implications of quantumn mechanics.

Though acid does help in that respect.
 
2012-11-19 06:08:40 AM
Of course, while we are on the subject of perception...

Perhaps our thoughts on time are just skewed. When I do a search across the index of a data table, my parser is only looking at one record at a time, and in the order I specified. The data doesn't go anywhere at the end of the routine.

Well short of some dick running "delete from table";
 
2012-11-19 06:09:17 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: Ishkur: I got bored of solipsism a long time ago.

Yeah but nihilism is the shiat...well maybe..probably no...argh it has no meaning!


My favorite are Benthamism, minarchism, and hooliganism. But not necessarily in that order,
 
2012-11-19 06:13:52 AM
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
 
2012-11-19 07:09:14 AM
This is the exact opposite of solipsism. It admits that there is an actual, "real" universe that exists outside of our heads- we just never experience it. Our experiences occur inside of a model build by our brains which were shaped by evolution to keep us from getting killed too much. Our model is accurate, within that particular problem-space.
 
2012-11-19 07:09:48 AM
I love that people are still making homunculi errors in this day and age. We see things. We just have a poverty of stimulus, but it's not like we aren't good (enough) at separating reality from artifacts.
 
2012-11-19 07:15:01 AM

Nurglitch: but it's not like we aren't good (enough) at separating reality from artifacts.


Good enough for which problem domain? I mean, yes, nobody is dying because ghost hunters are jerking off in dark rooms, but that's clearly a cognitive failure. There is an entire family of beliefs rooted in the cognitive failings of our brain, and not reality.
 
2012-11-19 07:22:40 AM

t3knomanser: Nurglitch: but it's not like we aren't good (enough) at separating reality from artifacts.

Good enough for which problem domain? I mean, yes, nobody is dying because ghost hunters are jerking off in dark rooms, but that's clearly a cognitive failure. There is an entire family of beliefs rooted in the cognitive failings of our brain, and not reality.


Good enough to make Descartes' concerns about episteme non-sensical.
 
2012-11-19 07:46:19 AM

cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green


Nope.

www.liparanormalinvestigators.com
 
2012-11-19 07:49:10 AM

Skr: This text is orange.


Hmmm... My color calibration is off. I need a new screen
 
2012-11-19 08:29:11 AM
The more certain we are in our hallucinations, the less information we think we need

So, Mitt Romney's landslide loss in a nutshell, then?
 
2012-11-19 08:44:09 AM

Cyno01: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

Nope.

[www.liparanormalinvestigators.com image 500x419]


Either I'm failing to understand the implications of that graph, or you're failing to understand the question.
The way I parse that question is: if you could see inside my brain how I perceive things that are green, would you agree that the color was green? Obviously, everyone is going to be able to see colors in the same way, but is the visual stimulus interpreted the same by our brains?
 
2012-11-19 09:57:23 AM
The really fun realization is WHAT we perceive as the "Color" of an object. What I mean is quite simply this: The "color" of an object is the light reflected back to the observer by that object, the light it does not absorb. So a different way to think of it is this: the object is actually all "Colors" EXCEPT the one(s) reflected back to us.
 
2012-11-19 10:38:53 AM
I've long had the theory that people in long-term relationships (i.e., old married couples) don't really look at their overweight, dumpy, wrinkled and gray spouses; they notice they're there and remember how good they looked when they were first attracted to them (or, in a different mood, remember how ugly they were the first time they got really pissed off at them).

Also, I think people don't really remember things; we remember how to remember things.

// Also, you can't kill time without injuring eternity. I'm blowing your mind, aren't I?
 
2012-11-19 10:50:15 AM

Bonzo_1116: thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.

The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"


Biologically processing the same stimuli the same way does not necessarily lead to the same phenomenological experience. That's why the qualia problem is so interesting.
 
2012-11-19 11:09:32 AM

Kome:

Biologically processing the same stimuli the same way does not necessarily lead to the same phenomenological experience. That's why the qualia problem is so interesting.


At least the starting toolset is similar. It's much easier to get folks to agree on what color "red" is than "brown", because we've got cone cells in the eye that pick up the "red" but the brown is a more hazy concept, and more culturally defined through learning.

Now, what a person might feel or think about a red flag when they see one is an entirely different thing.
 
2012-11-19 11:40:55 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration - that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather


I miss bill hicks AND douglas adams.

Is your real name Hotblack Desiato?
 
2012-11-19 11:41:24 AM

Kome: Bonzo_1116: thegod082: cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green

That topic came up in a biology class I took in college. According to the prof, they were doing brain-wave scans while people looked at colors, and from all indications, the tests showed that, discounting the anomalies, people do see colors as the same colors.

Then again, I went to a shiatty college and I myself know very little about anything too sciencey, so the above information could be completely inaccurate.

The pigments in your eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light, so barring freaky mutations most folks will have very similar colors they detect.

For some weird shiat look up "tetrachromats"

Biologically processing the same stimuli the same way does not necessarily lead to the same phenomenological experience. That's why the qualia problem is so interesting.


While the question still remains, we do have to also look at how brains evolved among our species. Every person is mechanically and biologically similar to their precursors. Humanity all came from the same place, so we are all fundamentally similar in our function (obviously, genetic abnormailties are just that). Also, evolution programmed our basic system to recognize specific colors, patterns, and combinations of colors as dangerous/safe/etc. If one's brain perceived such things differently, those same patterns and color combinations would no longer "fit" instinctual directives.

While we cannot specifically know (at this time) if what I see as "blue" would be perceived exactly the same by your conscious mind, we can look at how we as a species developed and evolved, and assume the commonality of perception to be "most likely".

tl;dr - "It's possible, but not likely"
 
2012-11-19 12:40:37 PM
So, is this a fancy way of saying "Perception is reality"?
 
2012-11-19 02:05:56 PM
The cake is a lie!

Recipe
You will need

A cake pan
Frosting
Stale hot dog buns
Candles (no more than 30)

Arrange stale hot dog buns in a cake pan (or if you are confident, on a cake dish) and frost them as you would normally frost a cake (you can make a layer cake if you are careful). If the cake is to be a birthday lie, you may want some number candles. 23 and 29 are good numbers. They are prime numbers, in fact.

Surprise the birthday boy or girl with a "birthday" cake. Note there is no cake. The cake is a lie. If you have done it right, it is a beautiful, tasty-looking lie.

Make sure the birthday boy or girl gets the first slice of cake. The object is to trick them into to thinking they are getting a slice of real cake. See how long you can maintain the line. Everybody laugh at them, especially if they say how good the "cake" is. Everybody laugh harder when they realize they are eating stale hotdog buns.

Note: people who really like frosting may not care if the cake is a lie, just as long as the frosting is plentiful and real.

This trick was pulled on a friend-of-a-friend when I was a college undergrad. But it is not an urban legend. It is a practical joke.

The cake has been a lie a lot longer than video games have been around. I expect my parents were pulling this gag when they were teenagers. You had to make your own fun in those days because you couldn't afford gas or movie tickets. Really. It was even more expensive than now, in inflation-adjusted and median income-weighted dollars
 
2012-11-19 02:08:16 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: You are all figments of my tortured imagination.

Especially you. You're extra fictitious.


That's why bullies always say:

Stop hitting yourself.

Stop hitting yourself.

Stop hitting yourself.

They know they aren't real.
 
2012-11-19 02:09:00 PM
Bullies said that a lot to you, didn't they?
 
2012-11-19 02:45:48 PM
Not me. I had Lasik surgery performed with Monster cables so I see everything in 1040p HD.
 
2012-11-19 04:35:14 PM
Much of this is overblown in a sad attempt to jazz up science. It's true that our brains construct an image of reality but the explanation is simple: biological lag. Even something as basic as the startle reflex takes about 10ms to processes but depends on your age and yes even your height (short people will always have faster reflexes than tall people due to the length of nerve fibers.) The fact is that while your brain is always guessing (a term I prefer to hallucination) it mostly guesses correctly; if it didn't we would have all starved to death long ago.

One of the more amusing aspect of this is among gamers. It's fun to hear them biatch about how "lag kills" and then point out to them that the 25ms lag they get from their ISP is actually faster than the lag of their own mind, which is usually in the 100ms range. In fact, the majority of the lag in computer gaming is exactly where most of the rest of the issue lie: between the keyboard and the chair.
 
2012-11-19 07:20:24 PM

cman: We are biological computers. It makes sense.

Now, here is another mind tripping question about sight: do two people see the same color exactly the same? As in if I saw something red that with your eyes would look green


Yes, we hammered that out in a different thread.

When you color shift a photo, for example, parts that were smooth transitions and shadows tend to pixelate or gather harsh contrast. We can all agree on what is smooth, therefore we see mostly the same colors. Some people are more able to see / identify different shades and tones, and some less(to the point of being colorblind), but green is always green and red is always red if a person can identify them(not colorblind).

That is taking into account the average person, some odd bird outliers may have a dysfunctional eye or part of the brain the organizes or decodes the input, but in general we all are the same.

Kuroshin: While we cannot specifically know (at this time) if what I see as "blue" would be perceived exactly the same by your conscious mind, we can look at how we as a species developed and evolved, and assume the commonality of perception to be "most likely".


You sort of get into the philosophy of what we "know". Varying and adaptable degrees of vibrancy or saturation, but no color substitution.

There is the phenomenon of condition and ambient light. Expose one eye to red light and the other green, then look at a grassy field with each, each eye interperets a different colorization of the field scene. One will see vibrant green, the other will see a much more brownish field.

Another interesting backing was mentioned up-thread somewhere. Dangerous animals with the contrasting hue would not benefit, evolutionarily speaking, by species that have no defined color spectrum.

__________

Meh, the argument reminds me of people attempting to sound "deep". What if dog was spelled "C A T"?
Magnets, how do they work? fark science, dwell in the mystery of it.

fark ignorance(and thereby large chunks of philosophy), is what I say. We see what we focus on in detail as we are able, however, our periphery functions on limited information, but we've known that for a long time. people who ooh and aahh at such things preturb me. That's fine in a classroom where learning is supposed to happen, but in an supposedly rational adult, not so much.

That's the kind of unhealthy/underdeveloped curiosity that gets chain emails spread as gods honest truth, be it political slander, religious mumbo jumbo, old wives tales, urban myths, or conspiracy theories.

People who play at being educated and clued in =/= healthy education and rational insight

/Don't mean to direct the rant at you, just a bit of stream of consciousness posting is all.
 
2012-11-19 07:37:05 PM

worlddan: Much of this is overblown in a sad attempt to jazz up science.


Agree with this paragraph whole heartedly.

worlddan: It's fun to hear them biatch about how "lag kills" and then point out to them that the 25ms lag they get from their ISP is actually faster than the lag of their own mind


True, some gamers will say anything to make it sound like something other than their own fault. Although, 70-100ms lag is about the best you can hope for when connecting to a random host in something like xbox matchmaking unless you live in a highly populated area(IE Denver). Still very playable. 150 starts to get noticeable and occasionally frustrating, at 250 a skilled player can still adapt and manage but it's tiresome.( I bounce in and out of 150 to about 350 in windy weather, but usually play at around 80-125)

Making 25ms out to sound like some sort of average is misleading for a large number of gamers.

And that's considering the issue is stable, playing over a network can be a nightmare because of spikes of much higher latency(whether it be in your house, your ISP, or somewhere along the way). I've seen it bounce as high as 2.5k back on Halo PC, some player from Zimbabwe joins your server and everyone's game goes to hell.

It has gotten worse over the last few years even with high bandwidth connections, every other random joe has a sibling/kid/parent/etc running torrents, streaming netflix or porn, or otherwise surfing high bandwidth websites.(myspace was fairly bad, facebook is quite a bit better but photo's can still be bothersome. Likewise, ISP's that don't try to keep ahead of it run themselves into trouble for their customers, feeding hundreds if not thousands of people their hulu/netflix/HDporn, leaving little room for responsive gaming.

That's part of what I like about Fark, it's mostly text so not so much of a hamper on gamers within the house usually.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report