Gooch's dad

D'oh! Yeah, Jesse, of course gamma rays are EM radiation. My mistake!

-Kelly

echidna

It seems that Ornstein has plucked “a trillionth” out of the air, but as a figure of speech to me it seems loosely appropriate. The ultimate point he is making, stands. Probably could have used a few words of explanation though. Gravity waves (should they be detected ?) are another form of information which passes through our eye.

Shadowy Man

Looking back at this quote, it appears to be poorly worded in many regards. We've been focusing (no pun intended) on the "one trillionth" part, but he says "one trillionth of the information". Well, what does he mean by "information"?

For example, the eye has limited angular resolution. We've focused on just spectral response.

If it were stated without a reference, you should just put it up there with sayings like "we only use 10% of our brains".

echidna

SM, with his ultimate point in mind "we obviously cannot see what is really out there", maybe you are missing the forest for the trees ?

(no offence)

Shadowy Man

Well, your original post did ask about the quantification of the statement, not the ultimate point. (i.e. you asked about the trees, not the forest - so that's what I was commenting on).

One of Origin

The question is, if some information is not received by our senses, how are we aware of such information. If we know exactly which information is not received, this means that we are indeed capable of perceiving in one form or another empirically.

For example, we are totally oblivious to ultraviolet light in the immediate senses, yet it is nonetheless perceptible through other means of perception (the utilization of a thermometer when it moves across the color spectrum, in this case).

Derec

You all have focused on physical aspects, mostly spectrum.

I would like to offer another interpretation which goes into "information" more closely.
When the retina detects an image, it is not transmitted to the brain as a stream of "pixels" (as a digital camera would) but quite a bit preprocessing and filtering takes place. For example the periphery sends much less information than the center of the vision field (unless there is movement). Also there is edge/shape recognition and some other things. I am not sure if the raw data/transmitted data ratio is anywhere close to a trillion but it is big.

UMoC

Oolon Colluphid

In my limited understanding of Shannon-type information, it seems to me that our eyes pick up pretty well most of the 'information'. Information is to do with usefulness. Do we need to see x-rays? Only if you’re a doctor, not if you’re a tree-dwelling primate.

We see most of what we need to see, because evolution will have punished those that missed what they needed to see. Therefore, rather than some tiny fraction, I’d say we see most of the information. The rest may be out there and missed, but to a bipedal ape it is background noise, not information.

Cheers, DT

Darth Dane

As TIME has progressed, we have been able to create machines that can see the infrared spectrum and so on. What makes you so certain that a machine that "sees" the aura for example, will not be made?

Now teleportation machines are being invented! That was pure fiction 20 years ago!


If you want wisdom you need to have an open mind!





DD - Love Spliff

Wyz_sub10

It's not a question of the machine - it's a question of the rationale for believing that 'auras' exist.

It isn't enough to say, for instance, that "people should have a soul. That makes sense. And it's perfectly valid because I may be proven correct some day."

You need a reason to believe in the soul to begin with - some observed effect that requires an explanation. In the case of auras, there is a belief and a "wait see" approach to justifying that belief.

This is working in reverse - beginning with an explanation and waiting for the observation to fit.