Perceptual Learning

[KhashayarShatti]

Now that perceptual learning goes to school, and maths problems may be analyzed differently, would this method be useful in cosmology and extra sensory perception development? How?
A question: Infinity or centre of the universe. How could it be taught in perceptual learning? In one of my threads Antice says:
The very concepts of everything having a center and an outside is so ingrined in our minds that the very concepts of infinity and absolute nothingness can cause mental distress when contemplated too hard.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328482.100-learning-without-remembering-brain-lab-goes-to-school.html?

[NEOWatcher]

Sorry; but you need a subscription to view that link...
How about giving us an overview?

According to Wiki, Perceptual learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_learning) is a process to refine your senses, it has nothing to do with refining your thought processes.

I don't see the connection.

[John Jaksich]

Now that perceptual learning goes to school, and maths problems may be analyzed differently, would this method be useful in cosmology and extra sensory perception development? How?
A question: Infinity or centre of the universe. How could it be taught in perceptual learning? In one of my threads Antice says:
The very concepts of everything having a center and an outside is so ingrined in our minds that the very concepts of infinity and absolute nothingness can cause mental distress when contemplated too hard.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328482.100-learning-without-remembering-brain-lab-goes-to-school.html?



If I am reading you correct---you are conceiving that we can attempt to understand infinity--well it does not seem to me that infinity can ever be stated in those terms. If I remember my maths (what little I do have)---the concept of infinity ---would be just as nebulous without the a numerical-type concept of it---to borrow a quote from "Buddhist thinking"--> it just is

I believe the concept of perception has to do with parts of our sensory experiences---and nothing to do with what we cannot see nor experience. To the best of my knowledge no one can read anyone else's mind.--even though one can anticipate what another does or can say---based upon past experiences or trends.

[snowcelt]

If you have no stress, you are not aware. Heidegger make a point that if you are not anxious, you are not engaged. You will end. Be tense. This is reality. Contemplating reality ought to produce a bit of distress. What? Reality a soothing balm?

[KhashayarShatti]

Sorry; but you need a subscription to view that link...
How about giving us an overview?

According to Wiki, Perceptual learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_learning) is a process to refine your senses, it has nothing to do with refining your thought processes.

I don't see the connection.
I think you need to register to view the link, only available for the next 4 days.
Overview of simple things that i understood mostly concerning pattern recognition:
1- Solving y=mx+c by showing different graphs and asking the student which of the graphs it describes....

2- Playing chess by how the game may develop from previous patterns.....

3- Radar traffic controllers to instantly spot two planes on a collision course on a busy radar screen.

4- .....

Obviously there are many more aspects to consider in this article.

IMO sensory system collects information. Extra sensory system must manipulate this information to help sensory system collect more useful information or select more useful information among many entering brain and making mind.

You see when one thinks of the centre of a circle, he/she in fact spots the perimeter first and then defines the centre for it. Imagine you are sailing a boat in the middle of an ocean. Where is the centre of this ocean? First you have to recognise the border. Perhaps horizon will define a circle in your mind and you notice that you yourself lie at the centre. But as you move kilometers away you will notice the same condition. As long as one can't define an exact border for the ocean, no centre can be defined for it. I think the universe is the same but a kind of 3D border that is curved whichever way you look at it and you can't see it beyond its 3D horizon perhaps.

But if we refer to perceptual learning in this regard, what sort of information are we really noting and collecting in our minds? Is it a kind of curved or straight sight that i'm looking at? Currently the border is the limit of obsevation and the centre is where the observer is, similar to the above sea-sailing example.

[KhashayarShatti]

When you google "extrasensory perception" many sites refer to it as something beyond senses. for example:
http://www.wingmakers.co.nz/ESP.html
It says "ESP is the knowledge of external objects or events without the aid of the senses."
I think some very important true definition of extra sensory perception is missing among definitions and that is the fact that ESP is highly related to sensory system and it is not just a kind of sixth sense.
What is the true definition of ESP?
I think wikipedia should add extra information in this regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception
It says :"Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind."

[HenrikOlsen]

ESP aka pure rubbish.

[KhashayarShatti]

ESP aka pure rubbish.
:rofl:
Perceptually what is distance? If E=F.d then distance=energy per unit force.Perceptually distance could be considered as a kind of energy per unit force. So all it means is that it could be motion of energy by force.
Infinite distance means if we could apply a large energy on a minute force we must achieve a large distance irrespect of time. i.e. if the ratio of energy to force is constant and large whatever the time then we get a fixed distance away.:confused:

[Shaula]

Do you have any idea what the equation you quoted means?

Work = force multiplied by distance. It has units of energy.

Apply a large energy to a small force? It doesn't even make sense if you ignore the fact that it is based on a misconception of the underlying equation.

What was being said is that there is no evidence (other than poor anecdotal evidence or the odd statistically insignificant trial) for ESP.

[NEOWatcher]

What is the true definition of ESP?
When someone can reliably demonstrate that it exists, then maybe they will have some insight into how it works.
Until then, there can be no true definition. Only speculation.

[KhashayarShatti]

What was being said is that there is no evidence (other than poor anecdotal evidence or the odd statistically insignificant trial) for ESP.
Now that ESP doesn't seem to have a clear definition, from point of view of perceptual learning which is going to classrooms, it seems to me that infinite distance is totally a kind of misconception. Either the definition of distance is wrong or infinity means something that is dimensionally not achievable whatsoever . But i think the first case is more appropriate. Lets consider infinite number. Speculating about it seems to need distance to practically applying it . If you want to write it down you need infinite distance or make it so small that it doesn't need dimension in which case perhaps infinity may be considered to be at the same position.
Is it possible to conclude that infinite distance in this context of perceptual learning is NOT something that one should take a distance to achieve it. However if i'm wrong then i think practical definition of infinity is wrong.
Considering next generations to understand infinity my second question is : Did big bang take place by distance or is it something that gives an illusion of distance and consequently misconception of distance?

[glappkaeft]

Now that ESP doesn't seem to have a clear definition,

Not only does it not have a clear definition but there is not a single scientific argument that it even exists.

[Strange]

Now that ESP doesn't seem to have a clear definition, from point of view of perceptual learning which is going to classrooms, it seems to me that infinite distance is totally a kind of misconception.

How on earth do you get from perceptual learning to ESP to infinity to the big bang. Every step seems to be a total non sequitur.

[profloater]

May I butt in? Is your question about extrasensory perception which is I think self contradictory. David Hume, philospopher, dragged philosophy into the basic idea that we build from our senses. Traditionally just sight hearing smell touch. There are others such as detecting radiation in the skin and who can say if telepathy is real; there is no physical reason why we could not have a EM based sense, birds have magnetic sensors and so on. My point is it is all based on senses and sensory information. Higher levels of input are possible because we can read symbols so we can learn from the words of peple who are dead or distant but it all has to start with our physical senses and what we experience. That is how we build our models and if I understand correctly there are schools of thought about using our senses to learn differently but not in the way you are implying.

[NEOWatcher]

..from point of view of perceptual learning which is going to classrooms, it seems to me that infinite distance is totally a kind of misconception.
No; it is not a misconception. It is a concept that does not fit the limited scope of perceptual learning.
It's like trying to introduce the concept of integration in an algebra class.


Either the definition of distance is wrong or infinity means something that is dimensionally not achievable whatsoever . But i think the first case is more appropriate.
Infinity is not limited to distance. Infinity is a universal concept of math.

[profloater]

No; it is not a misconception. It is a concept that does not fit the limited scope of perceptual learning.
It's like trying to introduce the concept of integration in an algebra class.


Infinity is not limited to distance. Infinity is a universal concept of math. It is also a universal concept. No end.

[Shaula]

The Big Bang happened everywhere*. You seem to think it happened a certain distance away?

Infinity, like the infinitesimal, is generally considered an idealised limit a system tend to. So in that sense it is not achievable. But it is still very useful as we can calculate things like the potential as distance tends to infinity.

I find you logic choppy and generally hard to follow - can you lay out exactly what you think things like this mean: "Is it possible to conclude that infinite distance in this context of perceptual learning is NOT something that one should take a distance to achieve it. " - so infinite distance is now not a distance? You seem to be tied up in linguistic paradoxes here.

Edit: *If it happened. BBT does not say it did

[KhashayarShatti]

....can you lay out exactly what you think things like this mean: "Is it possible to conclude that infinite distance in this context of perceptual learning is NOT something that one should take a distance to achieve it. " - so infinite distance is now not a distance? ....

No i don't mean that.let me put it this way:

6 = 2 x 3 from this 6 / 2= 3 or 6 /3 =2 we can say 3 is equal to 6 divided by 2 or 2 equals 6/3.

Now F = m a . From this F / a = m we may equally say mass equals to force per unit acceleration. Looking at it this way , the formula doesn't clearly show that this mass is moving. Is this mass really moving? or perhaps when properties change, is it felt as a change of distance? Please note that we are looking at it perceptually though we see and feel it moving.

Now also distance could be said to be energy per unit force. So is it possible to imagine that whenever there is a change of energy per unit force, perhaps instantly, then the next position of the object is definitely defined?

[cjameshuff]

Now F = m a . From this F / a = m we may equally say mass equals to force per unit acceleration. Looking at it this way , the formula doesn't clearly show that this mass is moving. Is this mass really moving? or perhaps when properties change, is it felt as a change of distance? Please note that we are looking at it perceptually though we see and feel it moving.

The equation includes acceleration, which is change in velocity over time...I'd say that's a pretty sure sign it's dealing with a moving mass. I have no idea where you're trying to go with "when properties change", etc.



Now also distance could be said to be energy per unit force. So is it possible to imagine that whenever there is a change of energy per unit force, perhaps instantly, then the next position of the object is definitely defined?

In contexts where E = F*d is applicable, change in E is generally achieved by changing d, but it could be achieved by changing F. The equation describes a relationship between certain quantities, not a process that can happen instantly or take some time to occur.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Your use of vocabulary is quite askew from normal usage...what do you mean by "perceptually"? Half of what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever because you're clearly not using this word to mean "pertaining to perception", as everyone else does.

[Shaula]

You misunderstand that equation too. Equations are inherently coupled to a model, they have a zone of applicability. F=ma applies to a rigid object being accelerated by a force, it is not some universal truth for anything with a mass in. Mass does not equal force per unit acceleration. The mass of an object can be determined by observing how it accelerated when a force is applied to it - that is what m-F/a is telling you, not that mass needs forces or accelerations to exist.

So again, distance is not energy per unit force. The distance an object moves can be worked out by dividing the energy expended as work by the force applied. That is all d = E/F is saying. You seem to be dropping the fact that E in this case is Work, not energy

[KhashayarShatti]

.......

Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to get at......
OK. Perhaps last post in this thread to clarify what i was trying to get at.
You see, when someone dreams he/she is driving a car, there is no car or no one moving in fact, but all the feelings of motion are sensed by the dreamer. Or perhaps we could say that dream is actually a kind of reality. A kind of reality with no dimension. When infinite distance is not clearly understood when we are awake, it may be most probable that being awake is a more advanced type of dream in which motions and movement don't really take place and perhaps in the real reality there may be no need to move. In this case infinity may not be considered a real phenomena. It is very difficult for me to explain it, perhaps movement in reality does not exist or there may be no need for it. Yah? A kind of perception?(infinite distance in perceptual learning).

[NEOWatcher]

You seem to be taking infinity in a philisophical context and trying to equate it to perception.

I said before, perceptual learning is limited.

It looks like you are trying to say that infinity is a false concept because it doesn't fit perceptual learning.

Are you denying that the concept of infinity exists?

[KhashayarShatti]

Are you denying that the concept of infinity exists?

I'm not trying to give a new theory, so i am about not to post in this manner.I'm trying to find out and learn from others in a manner called perceptual learning. I'm trying to find out about our perception regarding motion, movement in conjunction with infinity. I think motion is a kind of losing awareness of previous positions.
At any position , information at that position is different from other positions. So IMO if information of any position is sensed as exactly as being there, then motion or movement is sensed to have taken place to that position.

If any object changes position then information of the position of the object is changed for all observers. So everyone senses a kind of movement has taken place.

Now if information of two points is sensed at the same time then one can not feel that those two positions are away from each other. So infinity is sensed as a state of no awareness or a state of non achieveable information. i.e. at infinity awareness about information of that position is totally zero.

So the universe appears to me as a kind of information that any object receives differently and this appears to me that it doesn't contradict with a kind of motionless universe in reality.

[NEOWatcher]

Now if information of two points is sensed at the same time then one can not feel that those two positions are away from each other. So infinity is sensed as a state of no awareness or a state of non achieveable information. i.e. at infinity awareness about information of that position is totally zero.
I have absolutely no clue what you are describing.
How do you go from two finite positions to "infinity"? Infinity is not a "state".

[KhashayarShatti]

I have absolutely no clue what you are describing.
How do you go from two finite positions to "infinity"? Infinity is not a "state".
Sorry for the delay.
Infinity is regarded as a place where no information is sensed by any observer. Why is it so?
I think the best example is TV. My argument is based upon synchronization.

1-If a TV doesn't receive external information it is synchronized internally. Perceptually it may be resembled to a person who is asleep and when sensory system reacts weakly with external information then the person may be internally synchronized to its internal system.

2- When TV receives external information, it is synchronized to external information. All horizontal and vertical sync pulses are synchronized with the received signal(PAL or NTSC or SECAM). In this case it may be resembled to a person who is awake and all his/her sensory systems is bound to be synchronized with external information around.

Now the only difference between asleep state and awake state may be perceptually regarded as internal and external synchronization with internal or external information.

Now my question is: Is it possible to regard the universe as a kind of internal information in which all objects share the same information?(A kind of shared dream)? In fact i regard a dream a kind of non-shareable information state with external objects.

In this case infinity may be regarded as an internal lack of achieveable information state and may have no reality in comparison with its actual external state. I mean when someone is awake, it is only a more stronger state of sensory system that makes the person to think a real life because the person with stronger sensory system can share and obtain a vast amount of external information. Perhaps if this sensory system is made much stronger than awake state (as awake state is with regard to asleep state) then IMO it will be a sate in which one can obtain remote information simultaneously and most probably less motion or no motion would be required to obtain remote position information. (a kind of motionless concious). Then in this case infinity may have no sense perceptually as the world has no dimension for someone dreaming.

[cjameshuff]

Sorry for the delay.
Infinity is regarded as a place where no information is sensed by any observer. Why is it so?

It isn't so.
Infinity is the concept of a quantity larger than any finite quantity, no matter how large. It's not a place and has nothing to do with observers or sensing information.



I think the best example is TV. My argument is based upon synchronization.

So far as I can tell, your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of infinity.



In this case infinity may be regarded as an internal lack of achieveable information state and may have no reality in comparison with its actual external state. I mean when someone is awake, it is only a more stronger state of sensory system that makes the person to think a real life because the person with stronger sensory system can share and obtain a vast amount of external information. Perhaps if this sensory system is made much stronger than awake state (as awake state is with regard to asleep state) then IMO it will be a sate in which one can obtain remote information simultaneously and most probably less motion or no motion would be required to obtain remote position information. (a kind of motionless concious). Then in this case infinity may have no sense perceptually as the world has no dimension for someone dreaming.

Little of this makes any sense, in particular your usage of the words "infinity" and "perceptually" still seems to have nothing to do with the common definitions. What little sense I can make out of it is nothing but baseless speculation and wishful thinking. The universe does not care about your opinions or desires for things like remote viewing (which appears to be what you're ultimately aiming at) to be true.

[KhashayarShatti]

It isn't so.
Infinity is the concept of a quantity larger than any finite quantity, no matter how large. It's not a place and has nothing to do with observers or sensing information.

So far as I can tell, your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of infinity.
I think i have to refer to this phylosophical question:(Please note that i'm not referring to religious arguments.
Can God create a stone that he can not lift it?
In this argument i'm referring to any infinite quantity to be concieved without any place to hold it. Can we say, for example, there is infinite energy in an infinitely small space? Can energy or force or any other quantity exist without thinking of the space required to hold it? I think in this case we MUST say that motion or object movement may not have any meaning.

[Shaula]

So you are saying that if something is physically impossible or non-tenable then it has no meaning? Truth, Perfection, Selflessness, Justice and Harmony say "Awww" and slink off to join infinity. Philosophically.

[cjameshuff]

I think i have to refer to this phylosophical question:(Please note that i'm not referring to religious arguments.
Can God create a stone that he can not lift it?

How on earth does that relate to this thread?



In this argument i'm referring to any infinite quantity to be concieved without any place to hold it. Can we say, for example, there is infinite energy in an infinitely small space? Can energy or force or any other quantity exist without thinking of the space required to hold it? I think in this case we MUST say that motion or object movement may not have any meaning.

This should be obvious, but people can conceive of practically anything, there is no requirement for a concept to correspond to anything in reality. And there is no requirement that people think of a particular thing for something to exist.

And your final sentence is once again a complete non sequitur, not resulting from any discernible chain of reasoning or even linked in any clear way to your other questions or arguments. You haven't even defined what "this case" is, let alone why we must say anything at all about motion.

[KhashayarShatti]

So you are saying that if something is physically impossible or non-tenable then it has no meaning? Truth, Perfection, Selflessness, Justice and Harmony say "Awww" and slink off to join infinity. Philosophically.
Perhaps not quite. Better to say: if something is physically impossible to perceive, then that is a kind of non real state of existence.
To clarify: a kind of dream type of existence.
You see, in an asleep state or when dreaming, all sensory system functions perfectly and strongly real but in an internal information state. Externally this sensory system interacts weakly with information around. In that asleep state things occur that are not real in an awake state; such as flying.
Truth is the verification of history and since history was well defined we may say that truth exists perfectly well.
If while dreaming there is no sense of awake state, is it possible to say that while being awake, there could be no sense of real reality?
So when there is no sense of infinity, where sensory system is very weak to interact with it, its true understanding may be realized in a much more real awake state. Do you think that state may exists but we can not make a link with it while we are awake in this state?

[Shaula]

No, I think you are stringing words together to try to justify some mystic belief you have about the mind.

A radio wave is impossible for a human to physically perceive - we can only infer its existence from measurements that are consistent with a radio wave being there in the model we think best predicts the measurements we make of the world around us.

We cannot perceive a mind either come to think of it.

As for truth being verified history - oh dear. History is a story we tell ourselves to put observed facts into a narrative sequence that makes sense to us. It is not well defined, not at all. It changes all the time.

Infinity is an abstraction. It is a mathematical concept, as used in physics. It does not have to be a real thing in order to be useful. Imaginary numbers say Hi.

[NEOWatcher]

Do you think that state may exists but we can not make a link with it while we are awake in this state?
Flying is something that that can be imagined physically what it would be like awake. We have plenty of near zero-g experiences to equate it to, and we have visually seen things from various heights. We see people at a circus flying from a cannon. We see what it's like when someone is in freefall. We see people suspended in various ways that they seem to float. We see movies and animations to imagine it. Awake or asleep, we have some sense of what it would be like to fly.

Infinity is something that can be imagined in both also. Whatever limitations you have to picture infinity in your mind, exists in sleep and awake.

To me, that makes all your analogies useless.

I suggest you go to a philosphy board to discuss this. Your explainations just don't seem to fit in with the scientific method.

[glappkaeft]

Infinity is an abstraction. It is a mathematical concept, as used in physics. It does not have to be a real thing in order to be useful. Imaginary numbers say Hi.
Indeed, the entire field of mathematics says "Hi". Anyone who disagrees can PM me for my address and send me an integer of their choice.

[Solfe]

KhashayarShatti,

Are you referring laboratory based learning to enhance executive function(EF)? Executive Function is loosely defined as how well you use what you have.

I just read a paper on this in American Psychologist (paywalled, sorry). You might want to see if your local library has a copy or an account. Here is a link to the abstract. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787037) Here is a blog post on the article. (http://physiopsych2011.blogspot.com/2011/09/training-brain-practical-applications.html)

[KhashayarShatti]

KhashayarShatti,

Are you referring laboratory based learning to enhance executive function(EF)?
No. The title of the thread is " Perceptual Learning".

[KhashayarShatti]

No, I think you are stringing words together to try to justify some mystic belief you have about the mind.

A radio wave is impossible for a human to physically perceive - we can only infer its existence from measurements that are consistent with a radio wave being there in the model we think best predicts the measurements we make of the world around us.

We cannot perceive a mind either come to think of it.

As for truth being verified history - oh dear. History is a story we tell ourselves to put observed facts into a narrative sequence that makes sense to us. It is not well defined, not at all. It changes all the time.

Infinity is an abstraction. It is a mathematical concept, as used in physics. It does not have to be a real thing in order to be useful. Imaginary numbers say Hi.
Unfortunately, i don't get answer to my questions.My questions were:
If while dreaming there is no sense of awake state, is it possible to say that while being awake, there could be no sense of real reality?
So when there is no sense of infinity, where sensory system is very weak to interact with it, its true understanding may be realized in a much more real awake state. Do you think that state may exists but we can not make a link with it while we are awake in this state?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking if someone could find a better idea that answers all my questions. I think that is generally how science is moved one step ahead. Sometimes i try to find science answers(yes or no) to religious claims without referring to religious arguments.(for example the statement that all your life is a half a day sleep).(only sometimes not all the time). 20%) . One of the top British scientists recently said something and won the Tempelton Prize 2011. He said something about coexistence of science and religion. I'm sometimes trying to see what it means in a real world of cosmology and the universe.

[Strange]

Unfortunately, i don't get answer to my questions.My questions were:
If while dreaming there is no sense of awake state, is it possible to say that while being awake, there could be no sense of real reality?

You mean, even when we think we are awake, we are not really awake - there is a "greater" level of awareness and reality that we can achieve?

This is the basis of a number of religious and other esoteric philosophies (Rosicrucianism, maybe). It is not science.

It is, I suppose, an interesting idea. Rather on a par with "what if the universe was created 10 seconds ago but made to look 13bn years old" or "what if no one else is real, the whole world is just in my imagination". In other words, utterly pointless.


I'm asking if someone could find a better idea that answers all my questions.

Not here. You need a religion or philosophy forum.


I think that is generally how science is moved one step ahead.

This is not science.

[NEOWatcher]

No. The title of the thread is " Perceptual Learning".
How about a link to an independent, authoritative definition of "Perceptual Learning"?

[Shaula]

OK - I didn't answer because you will not like my answers but here goes.


If while dreaming there is no sense of awake state, is it possible to say that while being awake, there could be no sense of real reality?
Define real and reality. Do you mean subjective reality as interpreted by your brain? My brain? Why do you assume reality is what you sense when you are in a state you define to be awake? How do you distinguish between dream and reality? Given that people have dreams they know are dreams why are you supposing the awake state is any different if it is another form of dream state?

Short form: Meaningless question. Certainly not scientific and not possible to answer scientifically in its current form. In fact it may be impossible to answer scientifically as it has a get-out clause ("ah,l so this new state is not really real reality according to my arbitrary, unmeasurable scale of real")


So when there is no sense of infinity, where sensory system is very weak to interact with it, its true understanding may be realized in a much more real awake state. Do you think that state may exists but we can not make a link with it while we are awake in this state?
I believe I have a pretty good sense of infinity. I have several abstract internal metaphors I use to manipulate that concept. I certainly manipulate it mathematically and do useful stuff with limits to infinity and to infinitesimal. Again, you have no way to measure your understanding of infinity, no way to measure real, no way to hit a success criteria (in non-infinite time). I have no way to test if that state exists, no way to test if it does what you think and no way to distinguish it from any one of many self-delusional states I could be in. I am sure we have all have profound moments when drunk that were not so profound when we sobered up. But at the time we had no way to analyse the state we were in because we were in the state we were in and not observing it.

In short you rely on subjective experience and a self-scoring system that can never produce anything useful, scientifically. You cannot build a model or make predictions that others can verify.

So a summary? You are not doing science. You are just putting words together in a way that might seem hugely significant to you but seem like a disjointed series of assertions and impossible to check vague, subjective hypotheses to me.

Told you you didn't want my answers.

[KhashayarShatti]

OK - I didn't answer because you will not like my answers but here goes.
Define real and reality. Do you mean subjective reality as interpreted by your brain? My brain? Why do you assume reality is what you sense when you are in a state you define to be awake? How do you distinguish between dream and reality? Given that people have dreams they know are dreams why are you supposing the awake state is any different if it is another form of dream state?.....
Every state that we feel, may be regardes as subjective to a higher state of awareness. In any state of awareness all lower states may be regarded as being objective. A higher state may never be sensed as objective in lower states of awareness.(otherwise a drunk may not be drunk at the same time). So we may not regard reality as a real reality in the current state of awareness though i may regard it as reality in that state. For example: asleep state is a kind of reality in that state, but can not be regarded as real reality. We sleep almost a third of our life duration, but we don't regard it as a useful living state. So in response to the last part of your statement in this paragraph, i'd like to say that no one can have any sense of awake state while being in an asleep state. But while in an awake state, there could be the sense of asleep state.
You see, scientifically, multiverse is said to be a kind of physical reality. I'm only referring to physical realities from a perceptual point of view mostly concentrated on "Awareness" or( "awakeness" !).

[Shaula]

So, more arbitrary terms.

Higher state? Lower state? What are they? How do you measure them?

Note - the multiverse is a speculative hypothesis with no evidence for it and no way to test for it yet. So it is not really in the scientific domain yet. You are jumping the gun a lot to use it as part of your argument.

Didn't answer any of my questions this time, I see.

[KhashayarShatti]

So, more arbitrary terms.

Higher state? Lower state? What are they? How do you measure them?

Our sensory systems are highly tuned to receive information around in whatever state we live in. You see when someone is sleeping all the senses simultaneously react weakly with external information.
I've tried to see if it could ever be possible to completely lose the operation of any of the senses while being awake. Imagine when you are awake you have no meaning for the sense of touch. That turns out to be a kind of mistuning that sense and almost impossible. Experimentally only five senses are governing awakeness which are highly tuned to the reception of information around. If one tries to mistune, failure is imminent.

So scientifically there could be two cases:
1- there is a lot more information around that our sensory systems can never tune up with them.
2- our sensory systems are as weak as a kind of asleep state reacting heavily weakly with the information around.

In the first case, It may be possible to tune and receive the true image of the information around. I've already given an example about this: The example of the ant and a CD. The ant may never realise what the arrangement of the configuration of a CD is let alone to its information. Are we really understanding the information around in its real form(you may argue about real, but i would like to refer to it as a higher state of awareness).

In the second case, our sensors don't receive enough intensity of information and we may assume that condition as a lower state of life while existing in a higher state without noticing that.

There could be a third case for which we could say we don't have the right sensors. I think we could combine this into the first case where tuning a sensor has the same meaning of a new sensor.

The best example we can give here could be the example of different species of life forms. A monkey may have similar sensors but not tuned to the information around as for humans.

My final words as a question: ET is stipulated to exist. Is it possible to say that The sense of touch for an ET may be different from that sense for humans?

[Shaula]

It is quite possible your sense of touch is different to mine, let alone ETs.

So many ifs.
If there is a lot more information out there
If we can detect it
If we can understand it
If it is relevant or important
If...
If...

No science here. Just more subjective speculation. And again, you just skip over the bits you don't want to hear. You have no way to assess whether you are accessing 'higher levels of information' since you have no measurable criteria to test them with. You have nothing but your subjective definitions and terms, along with subjective measurements being compared subjectively.

[Strange]

The example of the ant and a CD. The ant may never realise what the arrangement of the configuration of a CD is let alone to its information.

Of course an ant doesn't know what a CD is. That alone makes the analogy utterly pointless.

As for the information on a CD, we can't access it either. We put it in a machine to to read the data and convert it to a form that our senses can use.


There could be a third case for which we could say we don't have the right sensors. I think we could combine this into the first case where tuning a sensor has the same meaning of a new sensor.

There is no way we could "tune" our senses so that we have laser vision to read a CD and decode the data to create music.

Obviously our senses are limited (to what is/was useful).

Equally obviously, there are other species with different (but still restricted) senses: bats who use sonar, fish who use an electric sense, birds that can see ultraviolet, etc. So what? That doesn't say anything about some metaphysical "higher state", just that different organisms find different senses useful.

Again: this is meaningless metaphysical speculation not science.

[KhashayarShatti]

No science here. Just more subjective speculation. And again, you just skip over the bits you don't want to hear. You have no way to assess whether you are accessing 'higher levels of information' since you have no measurable criteria to test them with. You have nothing but your subjective definitions and terms, along with subjective measurements being compared subjectively.
I think that may be all scientific and highly related to real life. How?
I think we can assume a model of a human that alternates between asleep state and awake state. In this model we can have five inputs(sensory systems) and five outputs(audio out, video out ......).
In this model two very important parameters rule over these states. I call them " need " and " fear " that cause these changes of states. How?
When one is in awake state, gradually body gets tired and ends up with the need to rest. This causes the model to change state.
When body is in asleep state, gradually body ends up with the need to feed. This causes the model to change state.

Fear can postpone change of state.

In bothe cases " need" acts as a force to change state.

Naturally life has found only these two states as vital to survive. How would it be possible to change our need to find a third state? Do we pay high attention to our needs? As an example, imagine we must disappear otherwise we may die. The reason that we can't get to that stage is because we don't find it naturally crucial as a vital need.


Now we may have a model with three states. 8 hours "sleep", 8 hours "awake" , and 8 hours "disappeared".

Of course that was a model, can you think of a vital third state for survival?

[Strange]

Now we may have a model with three states. 8 hours "sleep", 8 hours "awake" , and 8 hours "disappeared".

Or we have the real world with (typically) 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours awake.

[Shaula]

So in your model if I put a drip in someone's arm when they are asleep they will never ever wake up?

The reason we cannot disappear is because we never need to enough? Oh dear oh dear. You can need to as much as you like, doesn't make things magically happen. Otherwise there would be far fewer deaths out there.

I can think of many states vital for survival. Bulletproof. Immortal. Indestructible. Able-to-sense-bad-clams. Wish away - they are not going to happen to you just because you need them.

[profloater]

You seem to have developed your thread well away from perceptual learning. Your latest human model post is too simple by far. Parts of our brains remain "awake" during sleep and can wake our higher functions when aroused (by sound for example). Then again when "awake" it is well established that there are different levels of arousal not just an on and off state. The brain builds a model from experiences which are arguably all perceptual. It cannot create without inputs but it can invent new images and ideas from rearranging and developing what has been experienced. I wonder if you could restate what your actual question is?

[KhashayarShatti]

So in your model if I put a drip in someone's arm when they are asleep they will never ever wake up?

That sounds true for some people who had accident. Many weeks they stay in this state by everyday drips.
You see your example of "Bulletproof" doesn't sound naturally as an everyday and desperate need. But my point is also related to information around that doesn't let us realize the need for a third state. The universe is so imagined that synchronizes us to its current vital information around.

[Strange]

That sounds true for some people who had accident. Many weeks they stay in this state by everyday drips.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. (Among the many other things you are confusing; such as reality and imagination).

[KhashayarShatti]

You seem to have developed your thread well away from perceptual learning. Your latest human model post is too simple by far. Parts of our brains remain "awake" during sleep and can wake our higher functions when aroused (by sound for example). Then again when "awake" it is well established that there are different levels of arousal not just an on and off state. The brain builds a model from experiences which are arguably all perceptual. It cannot create without inputs but it can invent new images and ideas from rearranging and developing what has been experienced. I wonder if you could restate what your actual question is?
My actual question: Could there be a higher awake state with more awareness in which we may have a different sense of infinity(infinite distance)? If there is no limit for the edge of universe doesn't it appear as a kind of state in which we feel it with less awareness to understand it?

[KhashayarShatti]

I think you are confusing cause and effect. (Among the many other things you are confusing; such as reality and imagination).
All the universe appears as a 4D image in our mind. Our mind correctly is a kind of internal imagination, but I'm not focusing on that.
I'm focusing on the fact that a kind of third state may exist which may be much more realizable as true reality.

[Swift]

This thread seems to be more of a philosophical or metaphysical discussion, rather than any sort of science discussion. We've given it a lot of time to try to find some basis in science, but it doesn't seem to be getting there, and is therefore closed.

If anyone has convincing arguments why it should be reopened, Report this post and give your reasons.

KhashayarShatti, you have now started several of these metaphysical threads. They do not appear to be appropriate discussion topics for BAUT. Topics that are not based on physical reality are almost certainly not a topic for Science & Technology. And BAUT is not open to discussions about absolutely every topic. Before you start another one of these kinds of threads, please review carefully whether it is an appropriate topic for a science discussion.