rules are made to be broken? and others...

[eydryan]

first of all, colour blind persons are usually not just simply colourblind as they see red as green. they see some shades of red as green. and that's where the problem strikes. how can you know for sure which green is in fact red? and the monkey peeling the banana could actually be one and then you say, no it's blue! and confusion occurs. truth is even perception is challengeable. you cannot tell me that i perceive everything the same. one time i could have my eyes red, other times it could be a unique chemical exposure which would diminguish my eyesight. or for that matter how can you tell what you perceive? that is indeed interpretation. BUT, as i personally understand interpretation is the same thing as perception. we have no tools to separate them. so it is correct to say that perception is wrong even if the interpretation is actually wrong. for we have no control over any of these two tightly linked mechanisms. who can say really which of them does not work? except by using interpretation of perceived data. and about the machines which can guess colours, it's true, but can you convince your brain to accept 0s and 1s? no you can't so you must use its own perceptual system. and if that is flawed how can you tell or correct it?

now about the dimensional approach it is momentarily impossible. if i try to sick my arm through your chest it kinda doesn't happen. so, empirically i have demonstrated that no two solid objects can be in the same place. pperiod. and about mathematical demonstrations it is as easily demonstrable that 2+2 is NOT 4. but that is mere theory with no practical outcome. what i speak of is reality. so be there more than one dimension, it is for now out of reach, therfore the same pov cannot be achieved within this single dimension.

 

[Marctwo]

We obviously both have a different understanding of what perception actually is. But then that's the point, isn't it!

We can both read the same words that difine perception and we can grow up hearing the word used in the same contexts but we end up with different ideas about the very nature of perception.

You are confusing the technical terms here.

My idea of perception fits perfectly with any definition I've read and with general usage that I've heard. Maybe it would be more 'open minded' to say "we are confusing the technical terms here".

As for the dimensions... well, isn't it obvious that if you are observing something from the same time-space as someone else but from a different dimension, the very thing you're observing could be something else occupying the same time-space as your couterparts observation but in a different dimension. Afterall, if your counterpart isn't present in this other dimension, why would anything else from their dimension be in yours?

 

[eydryan]

marktwo just a sidequestion while others respond as well: what's with the avatar?

 

[Marctwo]

It's a character from a TV show called Little Britain. It's available internationally so check it out if you get the chance - although the humour may not be to international tastes.

 

[eydryan]

hehe, i like british humour, well at least to an extent, some just leave me cold too...
it's really an odd avataar, like daniel's... by the way, speaking of british tv and all: ever seen late night shopping?

 

[Marctwo]

No, I can't say that I have. The only late night shopping I'm familiar with is via the internet.

 

[eydryan]

nice one. it's a really great british movie, made with FilmFour i believe, but very very interesting concept and all.

 

[Marctwo]

Just found a few reviews - sounds quite good. I'll have to keep my eyes open for it.

 

[ksmattfish]

What are they, if I may ask?

You may never get your answer, Dan. This thread has degenerated into philosophy, teen angst, pink monkies, and movies.

 

[eydryan]

who's dan? i'm the one who started this thread. and what question do you talk about? oh, i see it now. but i answered that like decades ago... just look 4m higher

btw the movie is great try it, get it off dc or smth

and plus my last reply was not quite replied to.

 

[jadin]

, but can you convince your brain to accept 0s and 1s? no you can't so you must use its own perceptual system. and if that is flawed how can you tell or correct it?

I don't see how the brain can't adapt to 1s and 0s. Also a machine could just as easily use a base 10 system instead of a base 2, it just happens that machines started out with base 2 and we've been building on that ever since.

now about the dimensional approach it is momentarily impossible. if i try to sick my arm through your chest it kinda doesn't happen. so, empirically i have demonstrated that no two solid objects can be in the same place. pperiod. and about mathematical demonstrations it is as easily demonstrable that 2+2 is NOT 4. but that is mere theory with no practical outcome. what i speak of is reality. so be there more than one dimension, it is for now out of reach, therfore the same pov cannot be achieved within this single dimension.

I don't understand why we're still discussing this. Hertz isn't claiming that it's possible to be in the same place, but that IF it was possible, they would have the same pov. We all seem to be in agreement, just emphasizing different aspects of the same argument.

 

[eydryan]

0s and 1s is a metaphor, i just mean that for the moment our nervous systems are incompatible with raw data. and it would be wrong to teach them 0s and 1s when they already know their code which to me seems is working just fine...

oh ok we'll drop that part it is indeed splitting hairs with a very fine knife

 

[jadin]

Ahhh. Now it makes sense. I didn't realize you were talking about the fact that our brains are faster in it's own 'code'. For some reason I we'd moved on.

 

[eydryan]

For some reason I we'd moved on

speaking in your own code here man by the way nice logo change.