• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

reality = picture?

sushi

Active Member
Local time
Today, 05:24
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
380
#1
The more i think about it, the more reality seems like a picture.

of course, a picture is 2d, while reality is four dimensional.
there are 4 dimensional experiences like physics, motion and energy.

But in other ways, it seems more and more like a picture that has time and space dimension.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 14:54
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,245
#2
Pictures are 2D representations of reality. It makes sense that reality would share some similarities with them.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 06:24
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#3
the concept of dimensions is part of reality. so ironically they loose some credibility when the witness wakes up out of reality. which can make reality seem somewhat flat or stale. the witness thinks it's not a part of it anymore, in the same way a person isn't part of a comic book they are reading. but the separation of the witness is an illusion (meaning this awakening is only partial). and reality is rather full not flat. a self-fulfilling being. without identification, it seems as within this being so many things are happening at once, within the present moment, whereas with identification it seems one thought happens after the next and these thoughts are elevated, more real than their periphery. this at-once ness has something picturesque as well, like a picture of many people at the beach, where no one is in the foreground, as opposed to a movie that often forces you to focus on only one character at a time, so you can understand him, which requires your mind to track the continuity of doing. at this beach, devoid of meaning, you hear their voices and your own inner voices side by side and they all seem equally empty of experience and meaning, because in the present moment they seem robbed of the continuity of experience that would have otherwise made each of them seem special.

cartoonland: :kodama1: :storks::rip:

send money via paypal if you want me to quit giving fake it till you make it - satsang
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Yesterday, 22:24
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#4
For me it's the opposite. My eye presents images to my brain, but what I see (how I think about what I see) is more in the particular framework behind the image. For example, when I see a person, I'm viewing them more through their type than through the surface pixels my eye picked up. I note the physical details generally, but it's not that important. Reality is, how we perceive it is a model of some kind (either sensory or like my theory).

Whatever works for you. My ESFP nephew operates more through his senses. For example, he has to touch everything. Gets on my nerves, when he comes over he has to touch stuff to understand it. I knew a sculptor once who was like this. Probably an ISFP, I watched him hold a small piece he worked on. I could see that he was exploring it with his hands, from touch. A novel idea to me, I won't be bothered to actually touch something unless I have to. Just seeing an object is enough for me to understand it.
 

Columbo

Detecting...
Local time
Today, 05:24
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
26
Location
earth
#5
For me it's the opposite. My eye presents images to my brain, but what I see (how I think about what I see) is more in the particular framework behind the image. For example, when I see a person, I'm viewing them more through their type than through the surface pixels my eye picked up. I note the physical details generally, but it's not that important. Reality is, how we perceive it is a model of some kind (either sensory or like my theory).

Whatever works for you. My ESFP nephew operates more through his senses. For example, he has to touch everything. Gets on my nerves, when he comes over he has to touch stuff to understand it. I knew a sculptor once who was like this. Probably an ISFP, I watched him hold a small piece he worked on. I could see that he was exploring it with his hands, from touch. A novel idea to me, I won't be bothered to actually touch something unless I have to. Just seeing an object is enough for me to understand it.
yes
 
Local time
Yesterday, 23:24
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
40
Location
Chicago
#6
I have been thinking about a variation of this statement for a few weeks because it serves as a premise for something I am currently writing.

briefly, I think that rhetoric (the field of study rather than the "art of discourse" exclusively) ultimately has nothing to do with the concrete world, but it does require a particular image of our lived reality--a snapshot, perhaps--before the rhetorical act can begin. from this snapshot of reality, we can then use language to reshape events that occurred prior to that image (revisionist history, hindsight, assorted epistemologies, etc.) or construct a possible reality informed by that image (political discourse is likely the best example). neither exists in the physical world, but we can imagine a reality in which they can exist. a potential issue arising from this is that some physical reality must exist before the picture can be taken; but once taken, it ceases to be an objective view of the world because it is now framed by...well, take your metaphorical pick. the camera, the framing/composition of said image, someone's POV, language. ultimately, physical reality becomes subservient to our experienced/perceived reality and all the baggage that goes along with it. and for me, heaviest of all is language.

basically I like this idea and think there's lots of fun implications to it.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 16:24
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#7
There is a work from Schopenhauer called "The World as Will and Representation", and even just the title of that book has been very influential in my thinking.

So, you are speaking of the representation, which exists in a slightly different way in each mind, and the other aspect is the will which, to me, is the dimension of the world which gives rise to consciousness and decision making, and pervades all.
 

sushi

Active Member
Local time
Today, 05:24
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
380
#8
how reality is different from a picture in a sense that:

reality has physics and touch
reality can change
reality has space time motion


these are the properties that a picture does not have. But then when you just stare at something/scene
for a long long time, like james bond



the more it seems like a moving picture
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Yesterday, 23:24
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,893
Location
...
#9
A 2D picture is a great representation of the perception of reality that we as humans have of reality. It is not complete... there are things outside of the boundary that we cannot see. Not only that, but like you say, it is static rather than dynamic. It paints but a glimpse of what is much like viewing a painter while he is in the middle of a painting, not knowing how it is going to turn out. Ultimately all we can focus on is what is in front of us at the time. There is no possibility to see the world as a whole as a human, though striving toward expansion should ultimately be the goal.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday, 21:24
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
#10
I feel like you're nipping at the heels of Plato's archetypal forms but I'm not too sure with the ambiguous direction, as in you seem to be mostly giving reasons for why pictures are not like reality. Not to mention photographs are technologically inferior to the ability to freeze frame a multi angle 3d video recording. I admit I'm confused here. :confused:
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Yesterday, 23:24
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,893
Location
...
#11
Reality literally is only taking in the present moment for humans (and likely every other form of life as well). As far as our ability to analyze goes, it is vastly limited. The fact that people (Drs. for example) have to specialize in specific things is testament to the fact that we can not know it all or see things through a different lens than the gifts of perception and reason that we are given. It is our limits that dictate what we see and not what we do have. The goal, like I said, is in the expansive part of who we are. The part of us that, while only getting a picture of reality, it should be our goal to know as much about that 2D image that we possibly can. We even want to go beyond that at times - to look, to guess what is beyond what we can see. This is what makes us human.
 

sushi

Active Member
Local time
Today, 05:24
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
380
#12
the difference between space and space time is there space can imply fixed space.

fixed space is like a picture, where postion of everything inside that space is fixed and constant.


wherareas space time is like a fluid (non pcitureish) and things inside that space can move in a direction and change position.
 

JR_IsP

Overthinker in Chief
Local time
Today, 01:24
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
285
Location
Venezuela, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
#14
The true reality doesn't exists at all, it's our brain's interpretation of what our senses sense (redundancy here :D)



Here clearly the two lines have the same lenght, but our brain, used to perspective, thinks the upper line is longer.

Why can't a pair of VR glasses on each eye replicate exactly reality as we know? I think it's possible.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today, 06:24
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,650
#15
The true reality doesn't exists at all, it's our brain's interpretation of what our senses sense (redundancy here :D)



Here clearly the two lines have the same lenght, but our brain, used to perspective, thinks the upper line is longer.

Why can't a pair of VR glasses on each eye replicate exactly reality as we know? I think it's possible.
The brain is looking for meaning? What causes the error?

I am red/green color defect. But give me a pair of Donald Duck 3d glasses, that have one red and green colored glass. And I ace the tests. Otherwise I'd be at the bottom.

Isn't that interesting? "real Life" is quite defined by colour. If I used these Donald Duck glasses, I could suddenly be an Boing 747 airline pilot. But without Donald Duck glasses, I am disqualified.
 

JR_IsP

Overthinker in Chief
Local time
Today, 01:24
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
285
Location
Venezuela, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
#16
The brain is looking for meaning? What causes the error?

I am red/green color defect. But give me a pair of Donald Duck 3d glasses, that have one red and green colored glass. And I ace the tests. Otherwise I'd be at the bottom.

Isn't that interesting? "real Life" is quite defined by colour. If I used these Donald Duck glasses, I could suddenly be an Boing 747 airline pilot. But without Donald Duck glasses, I am disqualified.
It must be very "crazy movie from the 90s" seeing a boeing pilot with 3d donald duck glasses.

The error have to do with foreshortening, things far away tend to be smaller. Our brain have the visual clues (such as the railway in perspective) telling: hey! That's 3d there.

And since things far away must be smaller, in order appear of the same size, the upper one need to be longer... or that's our brains think.

It's funny how simple ilusions like this one confuse our brain that much. I'll let you with a LSD simulator.

Stare at the gif for around a minute without moving your eyes and suddenly look anything else, such as your hand.



Spooky, right?
 
Top Bottom