The other day I was trying to figure out if I could actually find a way to "see" the invisible spectrum. Wouldn't that be cool? What would Infrared and other low or high-end spectrum reveal to us? Would we see whole new worlds around us that we did not see before? What would the newly mapped world look like?
Curiosity got the best of me. I started searching. Googling let me know that there are creatures like Bats, Snakes that see life with different eyes. Some sites even mapped what these creatures see. Some images were colorless to indicate how a particular animal is virtually color blind (apparently, Dogs can not see much color). Few images were packed with great color (apparently, the bee has great color sensitivity). The owl is yet another visually gifted creature.
Reading on the eye and evolution of the eye I found Lipids and the story of the eye in Gregory's book "the eye and the brain"
With respect to cameras and detectors of the invisible light, my original quest, I found the topic of Infrared or IR LEDs. Apparently, we have these IR devices everywhere. I read that virtually all of our remote controllers have them; be it a TV remote or a radio-controlled car, all seem to be using this IR technology. In fact, I even noticed that an eye-detector instrument uses them.
If you think that our remote controls are an unexpected source for IR lights, then brace yourself because even the detectors for these IR exist in an equally unlikely source: our digital cameras!
I found that our digital cameras are excellent at detecting invisible infrared lights. In fact, I googled and found night vision cameras being built out of this technology. Inspired by this idea I am hacking my personal webcam to build my very own IR detecting sensor. I also bought a WiiRemote for this very same purpose.
In my opinion, another cool invisible-light detector is the cell phone. Do you not agree? I call it a detector because it has got a radio that picks up certain wavelenths that are invisible to the human eye. Like our biological eyes, it too has its own constructs that it builds out of its stimulus. So, isn't it an eye as well?
I feel that a normal cell phone can be a great way to read and record wavelengths which are undetectable to human eye. At Nokia I recall using the cell to detect all the broadcasted signals at particular assigned spectral frequencies. In this cog sci class I am discovering that this cell phone, in that sense, is like a eye for those wavelengths. Wouldn't it be cool to plot out in Cartesian coordinates the view detected by the cell phone?
With IR, I discovered that we could see a larger world than my eye could reveal. IR allows us to see in darkness. It allows us to see through plastic and is blocked by glass. If such is the revelation of IR, what then will the GSM and CDMA detecting phone receiver of our cell phone reveal? Again, what would all the reports of the various received signal of a cell phone reveal to us about the world around us?
I wonder if anybody built a phone-camera of the type I describe above?? Why wonder... why not I go google... off I go.
Sai Gollapudi
Thursday, October 8, 2009
colorblind in the mind as well
Do blind people dream??
In our Oliver Sacks reading assignment we read about a colorblind painter. He lost his color recognition after having had expert knowledge on the subject. This made him all the more uncomfortable and frusturated.
In the narrative, the patient with the leison claims that he could not even imagine color, dream it or recall it. Apparently, before the accident, he used to rub his eyes and see great colors. The patient claims that post the accident, even that feature was disengaged.
To me it looked like this man lost the concept of color from his mind.
Sai Go
In our Oliver Sacks reading assignment we read about a colorblind painter. He lost his color recognition after having had expert knowledge on the subject. This made him all the more uncomfortable and frusturated.
In the narrative, the patient with the leison claims that he could not even imagine color, dream it or recall it. Apparently, before the accident, he used to rub his eyes and see great colors. The patient claims that post the accident, even that feature was disengaged.
To me it looked like this man lost the concept of color from his mind.
Sai Go
to see or to look?
Great topic!
I too don't understand it fully. When I have some time, I wish to google this thing and see more details on the same.
In the meantime, couple of thoughts (own thoughts) on this:
1. Looking is a proactive and self initiated move. Whereas seeing is a passive, reactive activity. I presume that the suggestion is that we do not energize the eyes or process the info if there is no self initiated, intent filled pursuit of something. For instance, in a newspaper clipping (just 2-3 days old in TOI) they said that, during a conversation, we see the expressions that we expect to see in our partner's face. What we expect is what we see? does that mean that other expressions are not there or are not visible??!! No, it just could mean that we don't detect it or interpret it that way.
2. Just like web browsing is purposeful (even if it is for recreation), I would guess that seeing is also like that. It must have some agent driven (internally initiated) purpose. Though, some of these purposes could be subconscious, too basic, or too level for us to be conscious or aware of ... but still, I suppose, they are driven from the inside. Vision, as we know it, fulfills two purposes: (1) to get a representation of the world around us as beings, and (2) to help us navigate thru it. Both seem purposeful to me. Data that is beyond this may not reach us either.
What do you think?
Sai Go
I too don't understand it fully. When I have some time, I wish to google this thing and see more details on the same.
In the meantime, couple of thoughts (own thoughts) on this:
1. Looking is a proactive and self initiated move. Whereas seeing is a passive, reactive activity. I presume that the suggestion is that we do not energize the eyes or process the info if there is no self initiated, intent filled pursuit of something. For instance, in a newspaper clipping (just 2-3 days old in TOI) they said that, during a conversation, we see the expressions that we expect to see in our partner's face. What we expect is what we see? does that mean that other expressions are not there or are not visible??!! No, it just could mean that we don't detect it or interpret it that way.
2. Just like web browsing is purposeful (even if it is for recreation), I would guess that seeing is also like that. It must have some agent driven (internally initiated) purpose. Though, some of these purposes could be subconscious, too basic, or too level for us to be conscious or aware of ... but still, I suppose, they are driven from the inside. Vision, as we know it, fulfills two purposes: (1) to get a representation of the world around us as beings, and (2) to help us navigate thru it. Both seem purposeful to me. Data that is beyond this may not reach us either.
What do you think?
Sai Go
will recognition happen when WHAT path of the brain is removed
I am responding to the point of will a person blind on the WHAT part be able to recognize a chair if told about a brown chair placed in front of them.
I believe the Oliver Sacks book on Virgil address this. When Virgil ( a man blind for 47 years) gets his eyes restored, he doesn't recognize things. I recall a specific example where, after the eye patches are removed for the first time, he doesn't see the doctor's face or the nurses face... no, instead he sees blotches of color ... a mosaic of things. He claims to be unable to make sense out of the combinations and mixes that he SEES.
I conclude that he could not draw boundaries and group things. I take away the idea that he could get the visual representation... but could not construct a meaningful entity called face out of it.
Sai Go
I believe the Oliver Sacks book on Virgil address this. When Virgil ( a man blind for 47 years) gets his eyes restored, he doesn't recognize things. I recall a specific example where, after the eye patches are removed for the first time, he doesn't see the doctor's face or the nurses face... no, instead he sees blotches of color ... a mosaic of things. He claims to be unable to make sense out of the combinations and mixes that he SEES.
I conclude that he could not draw boundaries and group things. I take away the idea that he could get the visual representation... but could not construct a meaningful entity called face out of it.
Sai Go
danger in cross-judging discourses
As I was mentioning in class, isn't Science a paradigm a construct of our own making? If Religion / Faith and perhaps even Philosophy are faulty of making assertions that are not vigorous and data-rich and verifiable, can we also not accuse science of making a human experience dry, too atomic and devoid of the human element??!!
For a man of science, validation is a requirement; data is a requirement. Similarly for a man of philosophy an insight may be a requirement; for a man of religion a dogma and personal experience may be a requirement. To each his own, is it not?
The issue, I believe, comes when a man of science tries to evaluate and judge the corpus of subject under philosophy or religion, or any other discourse for that matter. It is my belief that Science is a construct of a scientist; philosophy is a construct of a philosopher. It is not only by a scientist and a philosopher -- it is also FOR their own community. So, when a cross community evaluation happens, when a scientists talks about a point of a philosopher, there then is the first gap.
Experience, dogma maybe enough for a philosopher, but is not enough for a scientist. Scientific data is enough for a white-coat, but that is too clinical for the man of religion. where then do the twain meet?
My take is that we should (1) be aware that a construct of philosophy is limited to the discourse in philosophy, and likewise, a construct of science in limited to the discourse in science and not cross compare. (2) We SHOULD take learnings and values from one to crosspolinate the other. Kind-a like the Medici effect of old Florence. (3) and, finally, we should NOT hold one world view much higher than the other.
Here is the clencher: If there are so many perspectives, isn't that an implication in itself of having one absolute on which these relative constructs are built?!
Comments?
SaiGo
For a man of science, validation is a requirement; data is a requirement. Similarly for a man of philosophy an insight may be a requirement; for a man of religion a dogma and personal experience may be a requirement. To each his own, is it not?
The issue, I believe, comes when a man of science tries to evaluate and judge the corpus of subject under philosophy or religion, or any other discourse for that matter. It is my belief that Science is a construct of a scientist; philosophy is a construct of a philosopher. It is not only by a scientist and a philosopher -- it is also FOR their own community. So, when a cross community evaluation happens, when a scientists talks about a point of a philosopher, there then is the first gap.
Experience, dogma maybe enough for a philosopher, but is not enough for a scientist. Scientific data is enough for a white-coat, but that is too clinical for the man of religion. where then do the twain meet?
My take is that we should (1) be aware that a construct of philosophy is limited to the discourse in philosophy, and likewise, a construct of science in limited to the discourse in science and not cross compare. (2) We SHOULD take learnings and values from one to crosspolinate the other. Kind-a like the Medici effect of old Florence. (3) and, finally, we should NOT hold one world view much higher than the other.
Here is the clencher: If there are so many perspectives, isn't that an implication in itself of having one absolute on which these relative constructs are built?!
Comments?
SaiGo
In NPR news: Music for monkeys, fear...
Cog Sci has been in the news lately. Here is a great story about appealing the musical sense of Monkeys! Yes, you heard it right, appealing to a MONKEY!! Check out this link on National Public Radio (NPR) of USA:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112444869
For those wanting to listen, there is a radio podcast bit as well.
There was yet another experiment in Switzerland on Amygdala, emotion and fear. It is quite interesting. Check out the story at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112531962
Amygdala hijack is a very interesting phenomena. It talks about how, when faced with a totally unexpected circumstance, we human-animals resort to our basic instincts of either FIGHT, FREEZE or FLEE. This phenomena is not as uncommon amongst us as one would expect. In fact, we see many cases of it in our own lives or in lives of people around us. Imagine a situation where you did something in the spur of the moment that now, after you had time to reflect, feels very silly, stupid / insane. You ask yourself why you even did what you did? What compelled you, you would wonder.
Well, most likely it is your Amygdala at work. Anyway, read about it on the net and be aware of this basic instinct.
Easiest thing to avoid an Amygdala hijack, I believe, is:
1. be aware of this phenomena,
2. when you see yourself or somebody getting into it ... take a pause, drink water, look in the mirror, lie down or walk away from that situation for at least half a minute or so. Give time for the rational brain to kick-in. Refrain from being impulsive! (Although, I am not sure we will have so much control on ourselves...)
Anyway, read the Cog Sci news, read about Amygdala and enjoy!
SaiGo
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112444869
For those wanting to listen, there is a radio podcast bit as well.
There was yet another experiment in Switzerland on Amygdala, emotion and fear. It is quite interesting. Check out the story at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112531962
Amygdala hijack is a very interesting phenomena. It talks about how, when faced with a totally unexpected circumstance, we human-animals resort to our basic instincts of either FIGHT, FREEZE or FLEE. This phenomena is not as uncommon amongst us as one would expect. In fact, we see many cases of it in our own lives or in lives of people around us. Imagine a situation where you did something in the spur of the moment that now, after you had time to reflect, feels very silly, stupid / insane. You ask yourself why you even did what you did? What compelled you, you would wonder.
Well, most likely it is your Amygdala at work. Anyway, read about it on the net and be aware of this basic instinct.
Easiest thing to avoid an Amygdala hijack, I believe, is:
1. be aware of this phenomena,
2. when you see yourself or somebody getting into it ... take a pause, drink water, look in the mirror, lie down or walk away from that situation for at least half a minute or so. Give time for the rational brain to kick-in. Refrain from being impulsive! (Although, I am not sure we will have so much control on ourselves...)
Anyway, read the Cog Sci news, read about Amygdala and enjoy!
SaiGo
Can WHAT and HOW paths be seperated in the brain?
You might enjoy reading "to see or not to see" chapter from Oliver Sack's An Anthropologist from Mars book.
The chapter is about a 45+ year old blind man who gains his eyesight thru surgery. His re-discovery of the new visual world is very lucidly described in this case study.
Here are some excerpts that I thought would be relevant to your thread on WHAT vs. HOW:
"when ... at home... virgil, caneless... found walking "scary" and "confusing" without touch, without cane, with his uncertain, unstable judgement of space and distance. Sometimes surfaces or objects would seem to loom, to be on top of him, when they were still quite a distance away; sometimes he would get confused by his own shadow (the whole concept of shadows, of objects blocking light, was puzzling to him) and would come to a stop, or trip, or try to step over it." (pg 120)
Did you notice how Virgil was unable to tell what his own shadow was?? BTW, he was still able to step over it... that is, he was able to handle it in a HOW way.
HS, another patient of Dr. Sacks, says: " During these first weeks [after surgery] I had no appreciation of depth or distance; street lights were luminous stains stuck to the window panes, and the corridors of the hospital were black holes." (pg 121)
Again, you will notice that it was not about how to walk or how to look or cross street. It had more to do with WHAT were these objects?
I personally could relate to the stated difference between HOW and the WHAT pathways. To me, WHAT is about recognition, semantics and identification. On the other hand, the HOW part is more about motor movement. While I do not know if Paralysis is related to this stuff, but I drew a connect to it: I felt that a Paralysis victim will be able to tell the WHAT of the world but not be able to do the HOW part.
Your thoughts?
The chapter is about a 45+ year old blind man who gains his eyesight thru surgery. His re-discovery of the new visual world is very lucidly described in this case study.
Here are some excerpts that I thought would be relevant to your thread on WHAT vs. HOW:
"when ... at home... virgil, caneless... found walking "scary" and "confusing" without touch, without cane, with his uncertain, unstable judgement of space and distance. Sometimes surfaces or objects would seem to loom, to be on top of him, when they were still quite a distance away; sometimes he would get confused by his own shadow (the whole concept of shadows, of objects blocking light, was puzzling to him) and would come to a stop, or trip, or try to step over it." (pg 120)
Did you notice how Virgil was unable to tell what his own shadow was?? BTW, he was still able to step over it... that is, he was able to handle it in a HOW way.
HS, another patient of Dr. Sacks, says: " During these first weeks [after surgery] I had no appreciation of depth or distance; street lights were luminous stains stuck to the window panes, and the corridors of the hospital were black holes." (pg 121)
Again, you will notice that it was not about how to walk or how to look or cross street. It had more to do with WHAT were these objects?
I personally could relate to the stated difference between HOW and the WHAT pathways. To me, WHAT is about recognition, semantics and identification. On the other hand, the HOW part is more about motor movement. While I do not know if Paralysis is related to this stuff, but I drew a connect to it: I felt that a Paralysis victim will be able to tell the WHAT of the world but not be able to do the HOW part.
Your thoughts?
I am a construct too??!!
talking about body images, V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra B. make a fantastic point on Pg 62 of Ch3 in their Phantoms in the Brain book:
"... your body image, despite all its appearance of durability, is an entirely transitory internal construct that can be profoundly modified with just a few simple tricks. It is merely a shell that you've temporarily created for successfully passing on your genes to your offspring."
Wow! imagine that we constructing our image as well. We may not be what we think ourselves to be! So, I don't have to go on a diet or take on plastic surgery; I just need to "reconstruct" myself in a whole new way and just deal with this new me.
Also look at the bottom line of the quote: Apparently, all this fuss is about our genes! Immortality seems to be a topic for the genes and not 'an individual life'.
Very interesting. Any comments?
"... your body image, despite all its appearance of durability, is an entirely transitory internal construct that can be profoundly modified with just a few simple tricks. It is merely a shell that you've temporarily created for successfully passing on your genes to your offspring."
Wow! imagine that we constructing our image as well. We may not be what we think ourselves to be! So, I don't have to go on a diet or take on plastic surgery; I just need to "reconstruct" myself in a whole new way and just deal with this new me.
Also look at the bottom line of the quote: Apparently, all this fuss is about our genes! Immortality seems to be a topic for the genes and not 'an individual life'.
Very interesting. Any comments?
why don't we see our blindspots?
We don't see our blindspot because we fill in the missing info -- sort-a do a quick adobe photoshop smear function. This does not cause us trouble because (perhaps) we keep moving about and because we have two eyes with slightly different blindspots each.
Simple description of the blindspot topic we discussed in class on Pg 89-90 of Phantoms in the Brain book. Pls have a look. It is in the reading for G1 for coming Saturday.
Cheers,
SaiG
Simple description of the blindspot topic we discussed in class on Pg 89-90 of Phantoms in the Brain book. Pls have a look. It is in the reading for G1 for coming Saturday.
Cheers,
SaiG
Ganesh and Platonic ideal
Howdy,
There is no doubt that we can easily identify a chair, no matter what it is color, raw material or design. An armed chair, a wooden chair, a cushy chair, a sofa-type-chair etc. are all chairs to us. Plato, in his book THE REPUBLIC, argues that this is because we as humans abstract up and identify with a concept called “chairness”. Once we get “chairness” we can easily fit any specific chair into it and label it so; even if it is a very special design that we have not seen before, still the idea of “chairness” will make us to quickly identify it.
In an interesting book on Art and the Brain, author Semir Zeki touches on a concept of Platonic Idealism. He quotes Book X of Plato's Republic and suggests that Plato would consider painting as a “lowly art” because it does not capture the “chairness” or the abstraction of things. Zeki points out that Plato believed that paintings only captured one impression, one viewpoint, one look as seen by the artist. How can painting ever represent the “chairness” could have been the concern of Plato??
Quite a deep thought... What does this have to do Ganesh, you may ask.
Well, in my mind's eye, Ganesha is a symbol, a representation of a thought, an abstraction. He many not be real (?) in the relational sense (?). That is, Ganesha may not be a picture of some “existing entity”. On the other hand, he does represent a symbol of some beliefs, attributes and values. Perhaps the same is true of a national flag. These items are icons, a representation of a entire ideology behind them.
Now, from a Platonic Ideal point of view, these two – a pic of Ganesha and a pic of flag – to me are not just pics of a visual that our eyes capture. No, in my opinion, they represent a bigger mind impression. They stand for something that transcends our eye apparatus.
Bottom line, Ganesha (just as the flag) beats the limit that Plato apparently put on paintings. Do you not agree???
Happy Ganesh Chaturti!!!
Sai G.
There is no doubt that we can easily identify a chair, no matter what it is color, raw material or design. An armed chair, a wooden chair, a cushy chair, a sofa-type-chair etc. are all chairs to us. Plato, in his book THE REPUBLIC, argues that this is because we as humans abstract up and identify with a concept called “chairness”. Once we get “chairness” we can easily fit any specific chair into it and label it so; even if it is a very special design that we have not seen before, still the idea of “chairness” will make us to quickly identify it.
In an interesting book on Art and the Brain, author Semir Zeki touches on a concept of Platonic Idealism. He quotes Book X of Plato's Republic and suggests that Plato would consider painting as a “lowly art” because it does not capture the “chairness” or the abstraction of things. Zeki points out that Plato believed that paintings only captured one impression, one viewpoint, one look as seen by the artist. How can painting ever represent the “chairness” could have been the concern of Plato??
Quite a deep thought... What does this have to do Ganesh, you may ask.
Well, in my mind's eye, Ganesha is a symbol, a representation of a thought, an abstraction. He many not be real (?) in the relational sense (?). That is, Ganesha may not be a picture of some “existing entity”. On the other hand, he does represent a symbol of some beliefs, attributes and values. Perhaps the same is true of a national flag. These items are icons, a representation of a entire ideology behind them.
Now, from a Platonic Ideal point of view, these two – a pic of Ganesha and a pic of flag – to me are not just pics of a visual that our eyes capture. No, in my opinion, they represent a bigger mind impression. They stand for something that transcends our eye apparatus.
Bottom line, Ganesha (just as the flag) beats the limit that Plato apparently put on paintings. Do you not agree???
Happy Ganesh Chaturti!!!
Sai G.
2D Vs 3D - hints on how to tell; my guess
How about other possible answers to the 2D Vs 3D thread...
I was thinking about the concept of occlusion. In a 2D there is no attempt by the viewer to see what is behind the overlapping object. However, in a 3D setup a viewer may frequently try to sneak a peek behind the occluding object. This could clue us into knowing if somebody is watching 2D or 3D
SaiGo
I was thinking about the concept of occlusion. In a 2D there is no attempt by the viewer to see what is behind the overlapping object. However, in a 3D setup a viewer may frequently try to sneak a peek behind the occluding object. This could clue us into knowing if somebody is watching 2D or 3D
SaiGo
rational Vs phenominal sense
Couple of weeks ago I downloaded Linux and installed it on my system. Just this week a lab neighbour of mine did the same thing. As I was helping him with the basics of Linux -- i.e. with what little I know -- I found a great connect with our learning of Relational Sense Vs. Phenominal Sense. Here is my interpretation of it:
My Laptop is the item with which I am having a relational experience. The Terminal on the OS usually gives me the rawest of mappings of this. However, to increase usability and understanding GUIs and applications have been developed. These give me a Phenominal view of the same entity (which I previously noted as the Laptop). I notice that Phenominal view of the Laptop is not reality. That is, it is not a true discription of my relational item.
The other thing I notice is that my Phenominal view is one of many possible constructs. E.g. Linux is one choice, Windows is another. Both will work and give me a usable interaction with the relational item (laptop).
In this example I see that there are some rules about our Phenomenal constructs:
1. a consistent mapping and interaction with relational item (that is, if I save a file in my OS, it should really do something in the relational world. And also, if the laptop does not save the file in the relational world, then that info should be passed on and reconstructed for me in my Phenomenal view / OS)
2. an internally consistent system (that is, the word Save, Find, Help should not change meaning within the OS or over time)
3. I should be able to go up or down on the hierarchy (i.e. I should be able to use either a Windows system or a Terminal to do similar work... granted commands / language may vary but consistency should be there)
What do you guys think with this connect I am making with our Computing environments?
BTW, after linking these two things I found a similar msg in Don Hoffman's book in the last chapter. It was refreshing to see similarity in thoughts.
Adios!
My Laptop is the item with which I am having a relational experience. The Terminal on the OS usually gives me the rawest of mappings of this. However, to increase usability and understanding GUIs and applications have been developed. These give me a Phenominal view of the same entity (which I previously noted as the Laptop). I notice that Phenominal view of the Laptop is not reality. That is, it is not a true discription of my relational item.
The other thing I notice is that my Phenominal view is one of many possible constructs. E.g. Linux is one choice, Windows is another. Both will work and give me a usable interaction with the relational item (laptop).
In this example I see that there are some rules about our Phenomenal constructs:
1. a consistent mapping and interaction with relational item (that is, if I save a file in my OS, it should really do something in the relational world. And also, if the laptop does not save the file in the relational world, then that info should be passed on and reconstructed for me in my Phenomenal view / OS)
2. an internally consistent system (that is, the word Save, Find, Help should not change meaning within the OS or over time)
3. I should be able to go up or down on the hierarchy (i.e. I should be able to use either a Windows system or a Terminal to do similar work... granted commands / language may vary but consistency should be there)
What do you guys think with this connect I am making with our Computing environments?
BTW, after linking these two things I found a similar msg in Don Hoffman's book in the last chapter. It was refreshing to see similarity in thoughts.
Adios!
Truth, Sathyam, Rtam
I just couldn't help but connect the word "Truth" to the Sanskrit word "Sathyam". The definition of Sathyam is 'that which is true in the past, present and future'. Doesn't this definition give Sathyam some sense of absoluteness? Can such a definition not imply that there is something out there that is indisputably true and not relative and momentary as we discussed?
Also we should ensure that we differentiate between Fact Vs. Truth. Facts may be correct momentarily, but may vary over time... however, Sathyam could be THAT which is transcending time.
A third point is about another Sanskrit word I recall -- "Rtam" or "Ritam". I guess this connects to the phenomenal reality (??) could we be refering to this version of Truth in our dialogue?
BTW, here is the Sanskrit definition of truth I could pull from the internet:
"We may also say that sathyam is concerned more with the external world, while ritam relates more to the internal world of mind and its modifications. Sathyam is said to transcend time—past, present, and future, ..."
http://www.sssbpt.info/summershowers/ss1990/ss1990-08.pdf SaiBaba
Also we should ensure that we differentiate between Fact Vs. Truth. Facts may be correct momentarily, but may vary over time... however, Sathyam could be THAT which is transcending time.
A third point is about another Sanskrit word I recall -- "Rtam" or "Ritam". I guess this connects to the phenomenal reality (??) could we be refering to this version of Truth in our dialogue?
BTW, here is the Sanskrit definition of truth I could pull from the internet:
"We may also say that sathyam is concerned more with the external world, while ritam relates more to the internal world of mind and its modifications. Sathyam is said to transcend time—past, present, and future, ..."
http://www.sssbpt.info/summershowers/ss1990/ss1990-08.pdf SaiBaba
question: how do you know you are watching 3D?
Bipin Sir posed an interesting question in our discussion group: How does a person know that they are watching 3D? What neurological or cognitive state or metric can we use to assert this?
Note that when establishing this we should not rely on any environmental or external info. If it is us who is watching something 3D then we can assume that we have info about our internals. If it is our study who is experiencing 3D than we can assume that we have neurological or cognitive access into the study / agent.
So, put on your thinking hats and answer this question: How can you tell something is 3D?
Note that when establishing this we should not rely on any environmental or external info. If it is us who is watching something 3D then we can assume that we have info about our internals. If it is our study who is experiencing 3D than we can assume that we have neurological or cognitive access into the study / agent.
So, put on your thinking hats and answer this question: How can you tell something is 3D?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
