the lens

It`s been suggested that our eyes let in much more information than what our brain can comprehend. In one`s given paradigm, it`s been said that the eyes are like lens and receive information that may go well beyond what the rational mind-brain can relate too in a coherent way with what you may call : 'a socio-cultural accepted reality'

can anyone think of an example?

Just about every optical illusion you can think of.

Snorky hit it on the head (as usual).

Pike, let's try this in a scientific approach instead of the usual drug hazed hallucinationary experience.

The eyes are receptors of photons, that map the incoming photons to specific neurons. The signal is then passed to the brain, which is a big signal processor. The signal processor analyses the input, and then simplifies the available data by mapping it onto a layered world model by means of a learned rule set (lots of data is lost during this process). This mapping is done in multiple layers, but the brain somehow retains a lot of the intermediate results somewhere in unconscious memory. This explains why people can remember so much more when brougth under hypnosis.

Hmm, on second thought, can you pass that joint on to me please?

Who is to say it is an illusion though? If i say i saw a UFO and i say i also saw little gray men walk out of it and then fly away, who is to say i`m the one that is seing an illusion and that you just haven`t yet opened up your paradigm to this possibility. remember, it`s ALL a possibility as some quantum physicists stipulate.

exactly...wingding included...

anyone else ever sat in a car in park, but still have this notion that your ever so slightly still inching ahead?

that's trippy...and yes it's when I'm sober

This is what you said, and I'm responding to this. It's not a suggestion - it's a fact that what we 'see' is the brain's interpretation of reality.

You asked for an example and I gave you one: optical illusions.

I just don't see where UFOs fit into all of this.

Actually this is not true. We do not have receptors for electromagnetic waves above or below the visible spectrum. We are not trained to ignore it, we simply cannot observe this radiation with our eyes. Apparently there was not enough evolutionary advantage to observing those frequencies. We can feel infrared on our skin though, and we can feel the effect of UV on our skin as well.

Thats true. Just like hearing. our ears will "hear" below 20hz and above 20,000hz but they dont repond to those frequencies.

That reminds me of a theory I read somewhere about traveling faster than the speed of light. Maybe we think the light barrier is untouchable because we don't have the instruments or the science to measure something that would travel faster.

For example, take an elevator, a 250lb dresser, a 1000lb piano and a scale that can weight up to 300lbs. Place the dresser on the scale in the elevator, starting at the top floor. When the elevator is not moving, the dresser registers as 250lbs. When you go down, the dresser registers as only weighing 225lbs. Going back up, it registers as 300lbs. Now take the piano and place it on the scale, it registers as 300 lbs. Going down it still registers as 300lbs and going back up it registers as 300lbs. You can logically conclude from this experiment that it is impossible for something to weigh more than 300lbs.

Obviously there are many flaws in that example, but it's just to show that although we may believe the light barrier to be impenetrable, that maybe be false simply because we don't have the mathematics to describe the physics of something travelling that fast.

So they can see us but we can't see them?? 8O

No, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us.

Yeah, he showed me the website.


www.venganza.org

Yes, then I would begin to see your colours, and you would see my colors.

Have you (and anyone else) seen this?

Mighty cool.

I'd seen a couple of them before. If you think looking at them is impressive, imagine what it's like actually drawing them. This dude got some impressive perspectivity skills. I wonder how often he has to check from the camera point of view in order to get everything right.

Let's ask Pike.

Your actual question was:

The answer to both questions is "Yes", btw.

With regard to quantum physics, I have this nagging feeling that I'm more informed about that than you are but feel free to surprise me. In fact the basis of quantum physics is "a universe of endless probabilities". There is difference between a possibility and the probability of that possibilithy.

Although I do not claim to have a full understanding of all the theoretical implications, one should not tend to overrate the influence of particle probabilities on the macro scale of human existence. To illustrate: if you throw a dice, you will have a quantum outcome of the event ranging from 1 to 6 with equal probability. If you throw two dice, you know 7 will have the highest probability (making it the most likely outcome). Now take the number of particles in a macro body (a person for instance), and imagine all these particles to be dice. I hope you can picture that the probability of the outcome of that experiment is much less random than you can expect from the outcome of a single dice throw.

Your actual question was:

The answer to both questions is "Yes", btw.

With regard to quantum physics, I have this nagging feeling that I'm more informed about that than you are but feel free to surprise me. In fact the basis of quantum physics is "a universe of endless probabilities". There is difference between a possibility and the probability of that possibilithy.

Although I do not claim to have a full understanding of all the theoretical implications, one should not tend to overrate the influence of particle probabilities on the macro scale of human existence. To illustrate: if you throw a dice, you will have a quantum outcome of the event ranging from 1 to 6 with equal probability. If you throw two dice, you know 7 will have the highest probability (making it the most likely outcome). Now take the number of particles in a macro body (a person for instance), and imagine all these particles to be dice. I hope you can picture that the probability of the outcome of that experiment is much less random than you can expect from the outcome of a single dice throw.

It's funny, but i have this nagging feeling that your answer to my second question is false. Your answer to my fisrt question however is easily integrated into my paradigm.

And so, your experiment above is all very nice, but what does it mean to you? if anything

The only thing any person is afraid of is the unknown, I would say.

i agree with that...and what might be the explanation for that fear?