4d Visible To Human Eyes?

[Ken]

On re-testing, I think the more likely explanation is that other clues (branches in front or behind, etc.) made me realize the one tree was in front of the other, but I was concentrating on focusing at the time which caused my incorrect crediting of accommodation rather than other cues.

 

 

I wasn't really referring to autonomic functions, rather behaviors that have become so familiar to the conscious mind (such as walking) that they are carried out without conscious effort or (very much) awareness. Better term?

 

 

Sorry if I came out sounding a little anal about the terminology. :)

 

Thanks for the report on your re-test.

[Kharakov]

Sorry if I came out sounding a little anal about the terminology. :)

No problem. I am that way about certain things, and I too try not to alienate others. Your statement caused my sympathy for another who has seen one too many semantic train-wrecks in conversation to flare up.

Thanks for the report on your re-test.

I really enjoy being honest and not defending my statements with ignorant tenacity, in other words, cool. :D

[HydrogenBond]

The half dimensions implicit of 2.5-D, applies to the way the human brain and mind perceives. A 3-D drawing on a flat piece of paper will not usually be mistaken for 3-D, since it is not 3-D. Through our sense of touch we can understand this is a special effect occurring on a 2-D plane. Yet, it almost appears to be 3-D, if the special effect is good.

 

As such, it is not exactly 2-D either to the mind, or else we could not say it looks almost like it is 3-D. I defined 2.5-D as being sort of the limit of artistic expression on a 2-D plane, where an image of 3-D on 2-D can almost fool one to think it is 3-D. It triggers an irrational overlay onto 2-D reason, where although we know it has to be 2-D, another part of us sort of sees 3-D. The 3-D glasses at the theatre are actually for 2.5-D perception, since we know it is not 3-D at the 2-D or rational level, yet a 0.5-D part of the brain will make us jump, reason and all.

 

The human mind can also generate 2.5-D thoughts, with 2-D of logic and 0.5-D of emotional shadowing. For example, if we consider democrat and republican, both express truth and good data in their own ways, but neither expresses the entire truth. For example, we need free enterprise plus we need to help the poor. But each will narrow the data set to half of the whole, then use sound logic to present good rational arguments for their POV. But both also need to deny the truth in the other's POV for the needed shadowing to create the 2.5-D image that their half the truth applies to all (3-D). If either side said the other side has many good point too, the illusion would be broken, since it would loose the shadowing and go back to 2-D. One would notice each set of logic is ignoring the other half of the data.

 

If the artist who shadows a good 2.5-D illusion used his eraser to remove the shadowing, the 3-D is lost.

[Ken]

The half dimensions implicit of 2.5-D, applies to the way the human brain and mind perceives. A 3-D drawing on a flat piece of paper will not usually be mistaken for 3-D, since it is not 3-D. Through our sense of touch we can understand this is a special effect occurring on a 2-D plane. Yet, it almost appears to be 3-D, if the special effect is good.

 

As such, it is not exactly 2-D either to the mind, or else we could not say it looks almost like it is 3-D. I defined 2.5-D as being sort of the limit of artistic expression on a 2-D plane, where an image of 3-D on 2-D can almost fool one to think it is 3-D. It triggers an irrational overlay onto 2-D reason, where although we know it has to be 2-D, another part of us sort of sees 3-D. The 3-D glasses at the theatre are actually for 2.5-D perception, since we know it is not 3-D at the 2-D or rational level, yet a 0.5-D part of the brain will make us jump, reason and all.

 

The human mind can also generate 2.5-D thoughts, with 2-D of logic and 0.5-D of emotional shadowing. For example, if we consider democrat and republican, both express truth and good data in their own ways, but neither expresses the entire truth. For example, we need free enterprise plus we need to help the poor. But each will narrow the data set to half of the whole, then use sound logic to present good rational arguments for their POV. But both also need to deny the truth in the other's POV for the needed shadowing to create the 2.5-D image that their half the truth applies to all (3-D). If either side said the other side has many good point too, the illusion would be broken, since it would loose the shadowing and go back to 2-D. One would notice each set of logic is ignoring the other half of the data.

 

If the artist who shadows a good 2.5-D illusion used his eraser to remove the shadowing, the 3-D is lost.

 

 

That's an interesting approach to allow you to talk about the situation. I don't question the way you think about it. My "perspective" :) on it comes from neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of the visual system. People in the Visual Sciences almost uniformly define Perception as the Selection and Interpretation of stimuli in the presentation.

 

I guess it comes down to an application of Occam's Razor, or biologically Lloyd Morgan's Canon - the notion that you take the simplest explanation as long as it works. Morgan re-stated it in terms of not using more advanced, or human, abilities when simpler explanations are useful.

 

Electronic comparisons of similar stimuli are controlled by the circuitry of the system; no need to explain the process as a machine/mental operation. I think it makes sense to apply that same reasoning to a biological comparison system.

 

One difference between machine and biological entity is that the more complex the neural circuitry the more "plastic" the interpretation, i.e., the more subject to past experience and learning. I think our different ways of viewing this come from the impact of learning.

 

There are some really interesting observations on people who were blind at birth and had vision restored as adults. They behaved as though everything was 2-dimensional, no depth perception. After some fairly short period of time (days or weeks) they learned how to interpret the stimuli and no longer tried to walk straight over stairway openings, etc.

 

Every individual point-of-view is valid, but I think you'd get the same general reaction from anyone else trained in this area. :)

[Turtle]

Today I saw something about a tesseract, a 4D representation of a cube. http://www.cut-the-knot.org/ctk/Tesseract.shtml

 

It kind of just looks like a glorified hexagon to me however. But that's besides the point: something about it struck me. If we can make a 2D space LOOK 3D (movies) then could we possibly be able to make a 3D space look 4D? Tell me your thoughts on this.

 

yes; we can make a 3D space look 4D.

 

An Introduction to the Vocabulary of Dimension

This page presents a graded sequence of activities, ranging in level from junior high school to beginning college. They are designed to introduce students to the concept of dimension and to geometry in space of arbitrary dimension.

...

Just as we can draw a 2-dimensional perspective picture of a 3-dimensional cube, we can build a 3-dimensional perspective model of a 4-dimensional hypercube. We will use the perspective in which our eye is one unit away from a ``face'' of the hypercube, so the back ``face'' seems half as wide as the front. Then the perspective model will look like this:

 

Every individual point-of-view is valid, but I think you'd [hydrogenbond] get the same general reaction from anyone else trained in this area. :)

 

every individual point of view is not however scientifically valid. h-bond's intention is always to position science as arbitrary in support of his metaphysical beliefs. i strongly disapprove of such utter & complete nonsense that only serves to muddy the waters & cloud the vision.

[Ken]

 

...snip...

 

every individual point of view is not however scientifically valid. h-bond's intention is always to position science as arbitrary in support of his metaphysical beliefs. i strongly disapprove of such utter & complete nonsense that only serves to muddy the waters & cloud the vision.

 

 

Well, that's one discussion I don't want to join in.

 

 

[Turtle]

every individual point of view is not however scientifically valid. h-bond's intention is always to position science as arbitrary in support of his metaphysical beliefs. i strongly disapprove of such utter & complete nonsense that only serves to muddy the waters & cloud the vision

Well, that's one discussion I don't want to join in.

 

 

 

i noticed that. :P no worries; it's the kind of thing they pay me the big bucks for. i also have a unique perspective on the topic, having blinded one of my eyes in an industrial accident a couple decades ago. ouch!! :doh: my retina is intact, but the lens is gone & the iris locked at full open stop. nonetheless, i can look (with spectacles) at the drinking-straw-model image i posted and understand that it is a hypercube. must be some of those past experiences in my caranium that you earlier mentioned. anyway, quite the little experiment from which i conclude that i now see in π-D, which brings my story full circle. :rolleyes:

[Ken]

i noticed that. :P no worries; it's the kind of thing they pay me the big bucks for. i also have a unique perspective on the topic, having blinded one of my eyes in an industrial accident a couple decades ago. ouch!! :doh: my retina is intact, but the lens is gone & the iris locked at full open stop. nonetheless, i can look (with spectacles) at the drinking-straw-model image i posted and understand that it is a hypercube. must be some of those past experiences in my caranium that you earlier mentioned. anyway, quite the little experiment from which i conclude that i now see in π-D, which brings my story full circle. :rolleyes:

 

:eek2:

 

Too bad my Mom wasn't around to tell you "Don't play with that thing, you'll put your eye out..."

 

I was once dumb enough to use a file without a handle to de-burr a lens holder I was turning in a lathe. The good news was that it didn't penetrate the back side of my hand when I managed to run it up agains the chuck..... :cry: The bad news was that it made a hell of a good attempt....