UnderGround Forums
 

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


4/23/14 3:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tiresias
291 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
267 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 6:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
KneeUpperCut Ios
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/12
Posts: 2930
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.
4/23/14 10:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joeyO
7 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
125 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
291 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
4/24/14 3:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
KneeUpperCut Ios
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/12
Posts: 2931
Tiresias - 
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

lol @ "you don't know how to use a semi-colon properly"... Typical Tiresias.

For someone who tries to play the role of an intellectual, you sure seem to enjoy avoiding meaningful conversations in favor of petty squabbles.
4/24/14 3:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
KneeUpperCut Ios
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/12
Posts: 2932
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - 
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

What optical illusions?
4/24/14 3:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
KneeUpperCut Ios
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/12
Posts: 2933
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - 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

If your consciousness is made from discreet 80ms blocks, then anything which occurs within that frame is registered by you as "simultaneous", at what point would you need to predict anything?
4/26/14 6:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Cire
267 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

Reply Post

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