UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Scientists can prove that we're living in the past

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

4/23/14 11:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ryans
486 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/18/10
Posts: 2082
It's very clear. If the sound and light are separated by 80ms, your brain receives the visual stimulus, does nothing with it for 80ms, then receives the auditory stimulus and experiences them as one, so you experience a sight that your eyes actually detected 80ms ago. If it is 81ms then your brain still receives the light first, but shows them as separate events; this means that your brain cannot be doing anything with the sight information for first 80ms after it is detected, ergo, you are experiencing things 80ms behind reality.
4/23/14 11:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tiresias
403 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/10/09
Posts: 30652
droplogic -
Tiresias -
ryans - ^also, you're wrong in claiming that something cannot exist if it's impossible to describe in human language. It can definitely be the case that a neutral "things in themselves" can exist and be impossible to describe. Just like the International Space Station exists but is impossible to describe to a mouse.
I didn't say that at all. Phone Post 3.0
Why don't you stop living in the past...up your own ass. Talk like a normal person and you'll be understood. Every post you make is masterbatory. Phone Post 3.0
You're an idiot. Enjoy that. Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 12:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
1505 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/25/04
Posts: 83131
"this means that your brain cannot be doing anything with the sight information for first 80ms after it is detected"

What if the sound never reaches your ear for whatever reason? Will the brain still not do anything with the sight information? Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 12:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Col Angus
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/13/04
Posts: 3804
Your eyes see the world upside down. The brain turns it right side up.
4/23/14 12:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21005
KneeUpperCut Ios - 
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - 
KneeUpperCut Ios - 
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - 
KneeUpperCut Ios - 
Chimp vision - Isn't this just common sense?

Everything would be delayed due to the speed of light.

Just like the time it takes for the light of a star to reach earth, on a smaller scale, the light of the clap needs to reach your eyes and be interpreted by the electrical impulses of the brain. Phone Post 3.0

The point his that from 0 to 30m the clap and sound are in sync.

At 31 meters there is an abrupt loss of this correspondence between the sight and sound.

You know a lot about this shit, don't we process sound faster than light at close distances because the chemical reactions that happen in our brain to see take longer than hearing in our ears? If so, couldn't that explain why the sound seperates at this particular distance?

But why would it ABRUPTLY separate?

Unless there's an active process syncing the two events, you would expect there to be a gradual loss of syncing as you moved away. Instead what you have happening is the two events remain synced up to a certain distance/delay, at which point the brain says fuck it and all of a sudden the full extent of the delay is realized.

The further away lightning is, the longer the delay from the time you see the lightning to the time you hear it, but there is a point where if lightning is close enough to you, you would hear it before you see it because the circuitry pathways take longer to experience through your eyes consciously than auditory processing.

This seperation is so miniscule at a close distance that we could never be aware that we heard sound before we saw the lightning, but we still know this must be the case. If we assume there is a limit to a labs ability to detect intervals of time, which i'm sure is the case, then there is a threshold where there appears to be a perfect sync only because of our inability to recognize the miniscule time elapse. Maybe the time elapse is a tenth of what we have the ability to detect so for all intents and purposes there is no time elapse at all.

So when we say we experience the clap visually and the sound of the clap in perfect sync, it might only be because the time elapse inside a particular difference is so tiny, that we don't have the technology to detect such a small time interval and only when it reaches a certain distance, which happens to be 31 meters, allows enough of a difference in the time elapse for us to recognize with our technology.

It might appear to abruptly seperate, but it could have been a gradual seperation at a time level that we can't detect, so when it reached a certain threshold it appears to be abrupt. We would expect the further away the clap is after 31 meters a gradual increase delay between sight and sound. Unless we can say with certainty that we can detect the tiniest time intervals, then I think this is a reasonable explanation of why it appears to be synced up until 31 meters before there is seperation.

Your conclusion that the separation is, in reality, gradual however we can't "detect" this until a threshold is met is essentially regurgitating the conclusions of the researchers and what I just said.

The only difference, and where you go wrong, is that you're claiming that we can't "detect" visual/auditory stimuli separated by 80ms. We can. Only in certain cases does our brain create a correspondence between them.

I wasn't arguing the conclusions of the researchers, at least I wasn't attempting to argue in terms of experiencing present which is actually the past. I have said many times that we experience reality in the miniscule past. I just don't see how our brain is actively pursuing a correspondence up until 31 meters based on light and sound being in sync up until that point. I was asking your opinion if the synchronization up until 31 meters could be explained by our ability to experience sound faster than our ability to experience light. If not, why not? You said the brain says fuck it, as if something magical happens at 31 meters and it isn't a gradual delay but it is a gradual delay after 31 meters, you could say there is an undetectable microdelay before 31 meters that can't be detected but I don't see why this wouldn't explain the synchronization up until 30 meters.

I didn't claim that we can't detect stimuli seperated by 80ms, 80 ms is about a tenth of a second which is how long it takes us to experience the light that hits our eyes, compared to a soundwave hitting our ear being practically instantaneous since it is mechanical in nature.

At very short distances, like 30 meters or less, the speed of the auditory processing is likely to be close enough to equal of the speed it takes for us to process light despite light travelling faster than sound because the added circuitry compared to the slower soundwave but faster processing. They cancel each other out in terms of one being able to be experienced faster than the other. Slower soundwave but faster processing, faster light but slower processing, the shorter the distance the closer in time we experience them. The further the distance, the longer in time we experience them. If nothing else, I think this adds to the context of why we experience sound and light closer together than you would otherwise expect if you simply go by speed of light vs speed of sound, there is another variable which is how we process the information
4/23/14 12:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21006
I can see how we can predict based on information, such as catching a baseball where we have to predict where it will be by the time we put our glove in a certain spot. If we waited until we saw it right in front of us, it would have already hit us. So I guess in that respect we use predictive visual cues to attempt to experience the past as present
4/23/14 12:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ksacs revenge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/13
Posts: 576
Science threads on the OG...my god they're painful. Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 1:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21007
If sound travels 300 meters a second, it would travel about 30 meters in a tenth of a second, which ironically, is how long it takes our brain to process light. You would expect our brain to process these as independent events after 30 meters
4/23/14 1:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21008
Unless the argument is because of the fact that we synchronize light and sound together, instead of hearing sound first, and since you would expect to hear the sound from the clap at a distance inside say 20 meters and the fact that we see and hear them at the same time shows we use visual cues to visualize something that although already happened in reality, our brain hasn't had enough time for us to process that it already happened so we actually predict into the future what our brain will have soon processed but hasn't had a chance to process yet so we can see what actually has happened but faster than our brain can process what actually happened? What type of reality is this

We use our brain to visualize something that already happened but because it takes a tenth of a second to actually "see" what already happened, we pretend to see what happened as it actually happens, but before our brain should actually be seeing it so we are cheating? It's like looking into the future to prove the present isn't actually the past. The whole thing seems circular.
4/23/14 1:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Right Hand JO Power
1956 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/8/07
Posts: 27257
lordbreakdown - 
Right Hand JO Power - What if c-a-t really spelled dog? Phone Post 3.0

thats heavy Oger


*high five*

4/23/14 2:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
1505 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/23/14 2:29 PM
Member Since: 1/25/04
Posts: 83136
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - Unless the argument is because of the fact that we synchronize light and sound together, instead of hearing sound first, and since you would expect to hear the sound from the clap at a distance inside say 20 meters and the fact that we see and hear them at the same time shows we use visual cues to visualize something that although already happened in reality, our brain hasn't had enough time for us to process that it already happened so we actually predict into the future what our brain will have soon processed but hasn't had a chance to process yet so we can see what actually has happened but faster than our brain can process what actually happened? What type of reality is this

We use our brain to visualize something that already happened but because it takes a tenth of a second to actually "see" what already happened, we pretend to see what happened as it actually happens, but before our brain should actually be seeing it so we are cheating? It's like looking into the future to prove the present isn't actually the past. The whole thing seems circular.

 

Woah! That sounds like it would fit in with the holographic principle.

 

 I don't think there is any prediction until we actually process the visual image of someone clapping. When the brain is finished processing that light signal, that is the moment we actually see that visual image of someone clapping. Memory then predicts that a sound must immediately follow and it always follows just as predicted, so no attention is paid to the fact that both signals arrived at different times.

 

We don't even have to think about it; it's completely automatic. We only become 'aware' if the prediction of memory fails. If the sound does not reach us as predicted, our brain automatically searches it's memory for an answer as to why the prediction failed.

4/23/14 2:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ryans
486 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/18/10
Posts: 2085
Tiresias - 
ryans -
Tiresias - 

Things are exactly as they seem, because there is no neutral "things in themselves" to compare the way they seem to.  Or if there were, it would be impossible to describe in language!


You could objectively and neutrally measure when an event occurs with scientific instruments, then you could record when it was perceived by the mind. The human mind doesn't change the way things are just by existing; there absolutely is objectivity in this particular case.
The recordings and observations you refer to are no less "things as they seem", as per OP, than anything else. Phone Post 3.0

The recordings are testable, empirical and verifiable; they are the neutral null case which it is sensible to compare the human perception to.

Lol at you trying to squeeze some of your mastabatory waffle into a science discussion; the brain experiences things 80ms behind. That's it. Either form a proper scientific rebuttal about brain speed or don't, but don't spout drivel and try and pass it off like a contribution. Every post you make is useless pseudo-intellectual waffle.
4/23/14 2:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MooseKnuckleMasher
336 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/21/13
Posts: 519
There is no spoon Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 3:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tiresias
403 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/10/09
Posts: 30653
ryans -
Tiresias - 
ryans -
Tiresias - 

Things are exactly as they seem, because there is no neutral "things in themselves" to compare the way they seem to.  Or if there were, it would be impossible to describe in language!


You could objectively and neutrally measure when an event occurs with scientific instruments, then you could record when it was perceived by the mind. The human mind doesn't change the way things are just by existing; there absolutely is objectivity in this particular case.
The recordings and observations you refer to are no less "things as they seem", as per OP, than anything else. Phone Post 3.0

The recordings are testable, empirical and verifiable; they are the neutral null case which it is sensible to compare the human perception to.

Lol at you trying to squeeze some of your mastabatory waffle into a science discussion; the brain experiences things 80ms behind. That's it. Either form a proper scientific rebuttal about brain speed or don't, but don't spout drivel and try and pass it off like a contribution. Every post you make is useless pseudo-intellectual waffle.
I am not disputing science. But go ahead and be mad at me over the point you missed. Call it "waffle" (tf?) And rest easy knowing how cleverly you interrupted my jacking off or whatever the fuck you've told yourself. You cow. Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 3:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ryans
486 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/18/10
Posts: 2086
Tiresias - 
ryans -
Tiresias - 
ryans -
Tiresias - 

Things are exactly as they seem, because there is no neutral "things in themselves" to compare the way they seem to.  Or if there were, it would be impossible to describe in language!


You could objectively and neutrally measure when an event occurs with scientific instruments, then you could record when it was perceived by the mind. The human mind doesn't change the way things are just by existing; there absolutely is objectivity in this particular case.
The recordings and observations you refer to are no less "things as they seem", as per OP, than anything else. Phone Post 3.0

The recordings are testable, empirical and verifiable; they are the neutral null case which it is sensible to compare the human perception to.

Lol at you trying to squeeze some of your mastabatory waffle into a science discussion; the brain experiences things 80ms behind. That's it. Either form a proper scientific rebuttal about brain speed or don't, but don't spout drivel and try and pass it off like a contribution. Every post you make is useless pseudo-intellectual waffle.
I am not disputing science. But go ahead and be mad at me over the point you missed. Call it "waffle" (tf?) And rest easy knowing how cleverly you interrupted my jacking off or whatever the fuck you've told yourself. You cow. Phone Post 3.0

No; you cow!
4/23/14 3:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tiresias
403 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/10/09
Posts: 30654
You don't know how to use a semi-colon properly, and you attacked me in angry response to your own shallowness. Keep chewing your cud. Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 5:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Cire
845 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12317
ttt Phone Post 3.0
4/23/14 10:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joeyO
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/27/11
Posts: 437
What is science really? The tide comes in... the tide goes out. You can't explain that! Phone Post 3.0
4/24/14 3:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ryans
486 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/18/10
Posts: 2091
Tiresias - You don't know how to use a semi-colon properly, and you attacked me in angry response to your own shallowness. Keep chewing your cud. Phone Post 3.0

It was correctly used to connect two related but independent clauses and certainly wasn't angry; you cow.
4/24/14 8:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21010
KneeUpperCut Ios - 
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - Unless the argument is because of the fact that we synchronize light and sound together, instead of hearing sound first, and since you would expect to hear the sound from the clap at a distance inside say 20 meters and the fact that we see and hear them at the same time shows we use visual cues to visualize something that although already happened in reality, our brain hasn't had enough time for us to process that it already happened so we actually predict into the future what our brain will have soon processed but hasn't had a chance to process yet so we can see what actually has happened but faster than our brain can process what actually happened? What type of reality is this

We use our brain to visualize something that already happened but because it takes a tenth of a second to actually "see" what already happened, we pretend to see what happened as it actually happens, but before our brain should actually be seeing it so we are cheating? It's like looking into the future to prove the present isn't actually the past. The whole thing seems circular.

Based on this latest research I would venture to suggest that it appears our brains likely bundle 80ms worth of information (auditory/visual/mechanical/etc) into a single "perception" and so we register everything that happens in that bundle as occurring simultaneously.

Do you agree that my numbers add up and give an explanation of why we experience light faster at exactly 31 meters? We experience sound instantaneously once it reaches our ear, we experience light a tenth of a second after it reaches our eyes. From a distance of 30 meters the light would hit us instantaneously and we would "see" a tenth of a second later, from a distance of 30 meters, sound would reach us in a tenth of a second but we would experience it as soon as it hits our ear. Sound moves 300 yards a second. Once you move the distance to 31 meters, instead of sound taking a tenth of a second to reach you, it takes about .3/100ths a hundredth of a second for every additional meter it would have to travel while light would still hit us instantaneously.

This does tell me that anything that takes sound less than 1/10th of a second to reach us (less than 30 meters) we should experience sound before light since it always takes 1/10th of a second to experience light once it reaches our eyes. I agree that it seems like we bundle this information into a single perception inside of 30 meters, but from my understanding the claim is we predict the future to maintain an accurate representation of the "actual" present that our brain is not capable of realizing as the "actual" present because the time it takes to produce the experience of vision is not instantaneous. The more I think about the context of this, the less important I think the research is. Isn't this the same thing that allows optical illusions? I just never thought about it before or why it happens. I don't think this is anything new or groundbreaking because we experience neural lag with optical illusions, I just never thought about the association of light and sound but when I think about the speed of sound and factor in the instantaneous auditory processing, 31 meters makes complete sense for sound to arrive after light
4/24/14 8:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ksacs revenge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/13
Posts: 579
"31 meters makes complete sense for sound to arrive after light"

It's demonstration of the 80ms rule. At 31m the sound no longer arrives within that 80ms time-frame and the two events (motion and resulting sound) are perceived as being separate events.
4/24/14 8:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ksacs revenge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/13
Posts: 580
Also, given that light travels faster than sound, the light will always arrive before the sound.
4/24/14 8:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/27/08
Posts: 21011
and light takes a tenth of a second to experience while sound we experience instantaneous, so there is no speed advantage in any time frame in which sound travels to us in a tenth of a second or less without us visually predicting a tenth of a second or less into the future to synchronize the information as a single experience
4/24/14 9:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tiresias
403 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/10/09
Posts: 30656
ryans -
Tiresias - You don't know how to use a semi-colon properly, and you attacked me in angry response to your own shallowness. Keep chewing your cud. Phone Post 3.0

It was correctly used to connect two related but independent clauses and certainly wasn't angry; you cow.
There are not two clauses.

You thought I was arguing about science, and got in a huff.

'Cow' is my coinage, indicating the mindless, sluggish, bloated qualities of your intellect. Do you think it's clever to repeat it back at me?

Can you post anything that isn't an attempt to cover up your stupidity with bluster? Lol. You gotta know when to fold 'em buddy. Phone Post 3.0
4/26/14 6:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Cire
845 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12332
bump Phone Post 3.0

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.