Originally posted by lil bitchinessIndeed. Imagine a prehistoric organism that saw a predator's full wavefunction: by the time it filtered all that quantum data down to, "It's coming to eat me"...well, it wouldn't, cuz it'd be eaten.
Interesting, and same here. I have no doubt our brain filters a whole load of things to bring in a coherent world view - majority of them, probably because we don't need to 'see' or interpret in our course of evolution.
But given that modern brains are still not perfect filtering mechanisms, might there be occasional "leaks"?
Fun to speculate.
Originally posted by inimalistwhat do you do?
maybe on the boards, I actually wince now when a room full of people I've just met learn of what I do.remember kids, science and parties do not mix
i luv science and parties!
loved the reed richard's scene in the FF movie at his bachelor party talking about the universe expansion and the strippers all being into it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting, and same here. I have no doubt our brain filters a whole load of things to bring in a coherent world view - majority of them, probably because we didn't need to 'see' or interpret in our course of evolution.
this is very true, however, it is amazing what does get through, and what can influence our behaviour without ever reaching consciousness.
for instance, you can have people do a dichotic listening task, which is playing a different string of speech into each of a person's ears. if the voices are different enough, people can attend to one or the other, but generally not both. however, if before the task you associate a word, say hammer, with an electrical shock, even if you present a word like nail in the unattended ear, subjects will show physiological signs of preparing for shock, though they would never consciously hear the word.
Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. Imagine a prehistoric organism that saw a predator's full wavefunction: by the time it filtered all that quantum data down to, "It's coming to eat me"...well, it wouldn't, cuz it'd be eaten.But given that modern brains are still not perfect filtering mechanisms, might there be occasional "leaks"?
Fun to speculate.
I think that might be putting the cart in front of the horse in terms of the evolution of sensory organs. they didn't start with every possible thing and work their way down, they built up from almost no ability to differentiate from light or vibrations to the complex systems of modern mammals.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think that might be putting the cart in front of the horse in terms of the evolution of sensory organs. they didn't start with every possible thing and work their way down, they built up from almost no ability to differentiate from light or vibrations to the complex systems of modern mammals.
Though he is right that if they developed something useless (of course on a tiny scale) they would invest too much energy into something useless that their competitors didn't, so they would be screwed. Though perhaps not because of having too much data.
Originally posted by inimalist
this is very true, however, it is amazing what does get through, and what can influence our behaviour without ever reaching consciousness.for instance, you can have people do a dichotic listening task, which is playing a different string of speech into each of a person's ears. if the voices are different enough, people can attend to one or the other, but generally not both. however, if before the task you associate a word, say hammer, with an electrical shock, even if you present a word like nail in the unattended ear, subjects will show physiological signs of preparing for shock, though they would never consciously hear the word.
Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. Imagine a prehistoric organism that saw a predator's full wavefunction: by the time it filtered all that quantum data down to, "It's coming to eat me"...well, it wouldn't, cuz it'd be eaten.But given that modern brains are still not perfect filtering mechanisms, might there be occasional "leaks"?
Fun to speculate.
Absolutely.
And also, It is indeed super fun to speculate. I am inclined to believe they are constantly some leaks happening and when they do happen...well people interpret that differently or perhaps the same, given our 'knowledge' of supernatural.
I was having a conversation with my partner just recently when we were camping and looking around at the trees and plants. What IF we could see EVERYTHING as it truly and really is? Would we be better or worse off?
World is amazing as we can interpret it right now...
Originally posted by King Castle
what do you do?
cognitive psychology/neuroscience
Originally posted by King Castle
i luv science and parties!loved the reed richard's scene in the FF movie at his bachelor party talking about the universe expansion and the strippers all being into it.
- strippers are easily impressed, especially in movies
- it is easy to make physics sound optimistic and inspiring, and it can be fairly easily conveyed to the layman
- telling people how their brains work is 50/50, but for certain there is a person in the room who is going to take it personally
- irl, as much as I love it, it is also work
Originally posted by inimalist
cognitive psychology/neuroscience- strippers are easily impressed, especially in movies
- it is easy to make physics sound optimistic and inspiring, and it can be fairly easily conveyed to the layman
- telling people how their brains work is 50/50, but for certain there is a person in the room who is going to take it personally
- irl, as much as I love it, it is also work
nice.. maybe you can tell me why i can sing a song lyric in my head but cant write a simple sentence at the same time?
Originally posted by Bardock42
And what kinda stuff do you do?
the stuff I was doing as an undergrad was dealing with visual attention. very generally, how different "features" of objects aide or prevent the grouping of these objects for further search. we found that objects of similar colour and/or similar size are grouped easily, but orientation didn't. in fact, orientation poses a strange problem, where it can sometimes be seen to aide, and others not. however, and something I might have been first to point out, studies tending to find positive results used larger stimuli, meaning it might have been easier to draw lines mentally between the objects. lol. I can go in if you are interested.
starting September I'm doing masters work running studies on how people make hand movements to a target with, without or with disrupted visual feedback, with various objects either blocking the target or distracting from the periphery. I saw the equipment I'm going to be using a couple of weeks ago, they have a set up that tracks both eye movements and hand movements live in 3d space. it is so badass
Originally posted by King Castle
nice.. maybe you can tell me why i can sing a song lyric in my head but cant write a simple sentence at the same time?
both tasks require the use of a limited attentional resourse.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessIn a sense, this is what meditation and the mystical literature are about: acquiring perspective, so to speak. If someone is ready for it, I imagine it would be quite beneficial.
What IF we could see EVERYTHING as it truly and really is? Would we be better or worse off?
Yo inimalist can we have a time out? Look I can see my last post kinda got you irritated but I still don't neccesarily agree with you. You did go to the effort to read the article and you get called a hypocrite for your efforts, I think you're kinda thinking.....WTF?? Too busy to answer to the post right now. I'm just saying cos it might degenerate into a flame, and thats just not productive.
Originally posted by inimalistAgreed. I was just oversimplifying. I would think if such a quantum adaptation was necessary, it would occur long before sensory organs were even a gleam in evolution's eye.
I think that might be putting the cart in front of the horse in terms of the evolution of sensory organs. they didn't start with every possible thing and work their way down, they built up from almost no ability to differentiate from light or vibrations to the complex systems of modern mammals.
Originally posted by King Castle
😐
are you callin me stupid?😕 'cause if you are i'll be very angry.. 😠
"Attentional resource" just means "capacity to pay attention to things". It's "limited" because you can't pay attention to lots of things at once. Your brain demands a certain amount of your attnetional resource to sing, it also demands a certain amount to write. So if you try to sing and then write the resource is spread to thin and one (or both) fail.
Originally posted by King Castle
😐
are you callin me stupid?😕 'cause if you are i'll be very angry.. 😠
I think in a meta way he kinda was. Sorry hug
Originally posted by inimalist
the stuff I was doing as an undergrad was dealing with visual attention. very generally, how different "features" of objects aide or prevent the grouping of these objects for further search. we found that objects of similar colour and/or similar size are grouped easily, but orientation didn't. in fact, orientation poses a strange problem, where it can sometimes be seen to aide, and others not. however, and something I might have been first to point out, studies tending to find positive results used larger stimuli, meaning it might have been easier to draw lines mentally between the objects. lol. I can go in if you are interested.starting September I'm doing masters work running studies on how people make hand movements to a target with, without or with disrupted visual feedback, with various objects either blocking the target or distracting from the periphery. I saw the equipment I'm going to be using a couple of weeks ago, they have a set up that tracks both eye movements and hand movements live in 3d space. it is so badass
both tasks require the use of a limited attentional resourse.
I'd be quite interested to know more. I have a friend who is studying cognitive sciences, and it is very interesting to hear him telling about the things he does and learned. Though his interests go more into artificial intelligence.