FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-19-2003, 12:03 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
But then that is even more unlikely. Am I supposed to believe that the processing power that is required to generate a virtual reality world just happens by accident? Why would it?
Silly question. Want to hear a silly answer?

It's so that we don't bump into trees.

No, I'm serious. Think about it: we live in a world of thousands of different types of objects in thousands of configurations. In order to navigate, we have to rapidly recognize, locate, track, and plot a course around these objects, despite varying lighting conditions, positiong of head, atmospheric interference, unrecognizable shapes, rapid changes in movement, blocking by other objects, and many other factors. And we have to do all this in just a fraction of a second. And that's just to avoid running into anything - saying nothing about our rapid identification and classification of objects. This is a level of computing power that is completely beyond our silicon-based technology. To give you an example - the Mars Pathfinder robot is limited to motion of just a few meters PER DAY. Why? So that it can avoid a collision with static rocks. And even then it occasionally needs humans to make decisions for it. If humans had to work with such limitations, we'd be maybe two steps out of bed before nightfall. And yet, these same levels of computing power are sufficient to create rich virtual worlds in real-time. What gives? The answer is that it's actually an EASIER task to generate visual input from known positions and shapes of objects than it is to do the reverse calculation. As such, we can expect any system that has the computing capacity to do the latter to also be able to do the former. And since unlike the famous George of the Jungle, we don't spend our time bumping into trees, I think it's safe to say that we have enough computing power in our brains to do the latter.

- Jinto
Jinto is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 12:12 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads
Posts: 1,308
Default

All of the abilities to create the dream world are present during conscious activity but more of the brains "processing power" is being used for other things. Perhaps dreams are just an organizing process that occurs when more of the resources are available. Just like its not advisable to surf the net while defragmenting your hard drive.
Jabu Khan is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 12:15 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Massachusetts, USA -- Let's Go Red Sox!
Posts: 1,500
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
What I am saying is that the odds of such a byproduct coming together by coincidence are just too low to be believable.
So, the redness of blood must increase reproductive success?

There must have been selection pressures for foot-print making?

My belly-button can hold tiny berries, ergo, it evolved for that purpose?

We are complex creatures, anti, and our complexity often leaves behind complex by-products. There is nothing odd or unbelievable about it.

-GFA
God Fearing Atheist is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 12:26 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 87
Default

Hi Jinto...

You just made a really good argument. I must ponder this for awhile, before I can formulate a good reply. As a TV News producer, I know that it is much easier to process video and store it, than it is to generate an image using computer graphics technology.

Even video games already have the virtual reality world stored in their memory - they don't make it up from scratch in real time.

I still have a hard time seeing how a really clear, lucid dream - or an out-of-body experience - could just be a vivid fantasy.

I think it will take me a couple days to chew it over and give you an intelligent reply.

Thank you, though - this is exactly the sort of response I was hoping for. This will very much help me develop this idea further.
Anti-Materialist is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 12:26 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: god's judge (pariah)
Posts: 1,281
Default

pseudoscience at it's worst.
keyser_soze is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 12:42 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 87
Default

What utter nonsense!

There is nothing scientific about it at all. This is just speculation. To call it pseudoscience is to give this idea far more validity than would be fair at this time.

How in the world (or out of the world, I should say) would we ever test such concepts? Science requires testing. Pseudoscience requires at least the pretense of testing.

I am definitely not ready to test any of these concepts - nor even give the pretense of testing them.

Thus, it is mere speculation.

That's not so bad though - all the great ideas began as speculation.

speculation is fun.
Anti-Materialist is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:06 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 1,211
Default

Do you consciously process all the visual infromation that comes in from your optic nerve? If your brain has the neccessary processing power to arrange all that information into a coherent image why should it not be able to form equally coherent images from other, internal, sources? Why should you have to be able to consciously control an ability to show it exists? Can you consciously stop hearing, without putting your fingers in your ears? Do you have any real reason to assume the brain lacks the neccessary power or is it simply incredulity?
Wounded King is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:09 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
You just made a really good argument. I must ponder this for awhile, before I can formulate a good reply
Yes, do ponder.

Quote:
As a TV News producer, I know that it is much easier to process video and store it, than it is to generate an image using computer graphics technology.
That's true, but the situations aren't really analogous, because storing the data isn't extracting useful information from the data: in most cases, we still need humans to do that. A better analogy would be storing a video versus playing it back.

Quote:
Even video games already have the virtual reality world stored in their memory - they don't make it up from scratch in real time
It depends on what you are defining as "scratch." Video games do not just display pre-rendered cgi sequences, but rather use known information, such as the positions and shapes of objects, to construct visual output. This process is much simpler than the reverse calculation - extracting the positions and shapes of objects from visual input. Which is what humans would have to do if they wanted to know where a tree was so they wouldn't bump into it.

If what you are concerned about is how we generate the ideas for the dream, it seems that we draw on stored memory fragments and combinations thereof.

Quote:
I still have a hard time seeing how a really clear, lucid dream - or an out-of-body experience - could just be a vivid fantasy
There are many things that are difficult to understand, especially if you've been thinking from an opposing paradigm for a long period of time.

Quote:
I think it will take me a couple days to chew it over and give you an intelligent reply.
Then I suppose we'll hear from you in a couple of days.

Quote:
Thank you, though - this is exactly the sort of response I was hoping for. This will very much help me develop this idea further.
You're perfectly welcome.
Jinto is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:15 AM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 127
Default

Oh man is that bullshit... I mean real grade-A bullshit.

Let me just run these down.

"However, my best visualizations inside my mind are at best wire frame images. If I really try hard, I can add detail, but it takes time."

Seriously? So when you read a book, all the characters are in wireframe? Geez, talk about a bad imagination.

"It gets even trickier from here. I have taught myself to leave my body. I cannot do it very well. I can only get a few feet from my body before I pop back in. But, I am able to do it - and take the time to observe my surroundings while I am out-of-body."

More grade-A bullshit. Want to make some real money? Go apply for the James Randi Million dollar challenge. You would be amazed how many people he has tested who really do think they have 'the power'.

I have to ask you though. Why do you think everything that creates imagination must be dedicated hardware.

Put it this way, if you have the ability do observe the world around and process the images coming from you eyes to your brain then to process dream images, all you need is some input for the visual part of your brain. The underlying hardware is already there. (EDIT: Looks like Wounded King beat me to this point, damnit. )
Elvithriel is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:31 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Does the condescension help, Elvithriel?
Jinto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.