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 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 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.

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.

[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 questionPlease 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 questionPlease 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?