LGP Science Thread

[Rylan]

What bhaw said. The stills can be impossible to seperate and yet still have gaps. So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Like film?

Exactly.

[Kraftster]

But how can the mind work without motion?

[Rylan]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

[Physical_Graffiti]

What bhaw said. The stills can be impossible to seperate and yet still have gaps. So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Like film?

Exactly.

I think we discussed this in Religion class.

[columbia]

So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Because the gaps inherently exist or that the brain has to create the gaps - and back fill the information - because of the limitations in its ability to process a continuous stream of data?

[bhaw]

So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Because the gaps inherently exist or that the brain has to create the gaps - and back fill the information - because of the limitations in its ability to process a continuous stream of data?

It's kind of like how you can read that paragraph with all the misspellings. As long as all the letters are there and the first and last letters are in the right place, and can put the rest together without hesitation. Maybe that's the same for the stills. It has the beginning and the end so it can fill in the rest.

[Rylan]

So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Because the gaps inherently exist or that the brain has to create the gaps - and back fill the information - because of the limitations in its ability to process a continuous stream of data?

It's kind of like how you can read that paragraph with all the misspellings. As long as all the letters are there and the first and last letters are in the right place, and can put the rest together without hesitation. Maybe that's the same for the stills. It has the beginning and the end so it can fill in the rest.

This is how I feel about it. Its not necessarily what the gaps are or how they are created, either way the brain fills everything in.

[columbia]

Shouldn't the power of perception (of time) be limited to the slowest of the five senses?
It would determine how much information one can process in a specific interval of time.

<I'm ok if that is complete pseudo science, btw.>

[Kraftster]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

What do you mean?

Yes, that is what I am asking. In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion. This scenario of time (or lack thereof) does not allow for motion. The brain certainly doesn't exist "outside of" the stills, its part of the stills.

[bhaw]

In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion.

Not that I buy this theory, but I think the question would be "Why?" Why does the brain need motion? Because that's what traditional theory says? Obviously this is so far from traditional science that it's fair to assume motion would not be needed.

Perhaps the brain "creates" the motion. For example for a car to get from point A to point B, perhaps the brain knows that logically it will travel the line between points A and B, thus creating it's own "motion."

This is so theoretical, that I don't know how to explain it.

[Rylan]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

What do you mean?

Yes, that is what I am asking. In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion. This scenario of time (or lack thereof) does not allow for motion. The brain certainly doesn't exist "outside of" the stills, its part of the stills.

Wanted to be sure.

Define motion. Motion is possibly just the perception of the stills being processed. Therefore, time is both stationary and in motion.

[Kraftster]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

What do you mean?

Yes, that is what I am asking. In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion. This scenario of time (or lack thereof) does not allow for motion. The brain certainly doesn't exist "outside of" the stills, its part of the stills.

Wanted to be sure.

Define motion. Motion is possibly just the perception of the stills being processed. Therefore, time is both stationary and in motion.

The motion that I am suggesting is necessary for the brain to perceive anything would relate to the ability of the physical brain to engage in the physical processes necessary for thought. Thoughts do not just occur spontaneously in the brain, they are generated by physical processes (neurons firing, etc.). Without the possibility of physical processes/chemical reactions occurring, I just don't know how the brain gets to the point where it has a thought which tricks us into seeing fluid motion when its really just stills.

[Physical_Graffiti]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

What do you mean?

Yes, that is what I am asking. In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion. This scenario of time (or lack thereof) does not allow for motion. The brain certainly doesn't exist "outside of" the stills, its part of the stills.

I'm guessing it's like film, or drawing a similar picture all throughout a flipbook: They are made up of many still pictures that, when placed closely together, create motion or movement.

Nothing is actually moving, but we perceive that it is.

[columbia]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

[Kraftster]

But how can the mind work without motion?

What do you mean? How does the mind move through the stills?

What do you mean?

Yes, that is what I am asking. In order to perceive (to be able to fill in the gaps), the brain needs motion. This scenario of time (or lack thereof) does not allow for motion. The brain certainly doesn't exist "outside of" the stills, its part of the stills.

I'm guessing it's like film, or drawing a similar picture all throughout a flipbook: They are made up of many still pictures that, when placed closely together, create motion or movement.

Nothing is actually moving, but we perceive that it is.

I can understand how the brain could trick us into seeing motion where none exists if the brain could think in that scenario. I'm trying to figure out how the brain can think to be able to trick us.

[Kraftster]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

Right.

I guess the question for me is best stated as, what room is there for thought in the stills scenario? Brain definitely limited in the stills scenario.

[columbia]

Not really related to the conversation, but still interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Kraftster]

Not really related to the conversation, but still interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The brain is so fascinating.

Edit: I was watching Survivor once about 5 years ago. There was a challenge that involved some kind of recall. I chunked in seven chunks to remember the stuff as I followed at home. The one guy on the show chunked in seven chunks and he obliterated all the other contestants. I remember reading about chunking after that happened.

[columbia]

Indexing
Task switching
Chunking
Elaboration

I - somehow - still recall that list from my freshman psychology class.
It was a unit on mnemonic memory techniques that employed mnemonics.

Recursive learning strategies...Mind = blown.

[Physical_Graffiti]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

Right.

I guess the question for me is best stated as, what room is there for thought in the stills scenario? Brain definitely limited in the stills scenario.

Why is there no room for thought? Doesn't it just suggest that "the hand is quicker than the eye"?

[columbia]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

Right.

I guess the question for me is best stated as, what room is there for thought in the stills scenario? Brain definitely limited in the stills scenario.

Why is there no room for thought? Doesn't it just suggest that "the hand is quicker than the eye"?

Perhaps it is.

[Kraftster]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

Right.

I guess the question for me is best stated as, what room is there for thought in the stills scenario? Brain definitely limited in the stills scenario.

Why is there no room for thought? Doesn't it just suggest that "the hand is quicker than the eye"?

I don't think because I don't see how the brain can be quicker than the eye when it fundamentally can't work.

[columbia]

So if the mind cannot perceive everything that exists before it, should I question my atheism?

[Physical_Graffiti]

But aren't you begging the question?
It seems that the stills would be a sign of the limitations of the brain.

Right.

I guess the question for me is best stated as, what room is there for thought in the stills scenario? Brain definitely limited in the stills scenario.

Why is there no room for thought? Doesn't it just suggest that "the hand is quicker than the eye"?

I don't think because I don't see how the brain can be quicker than the eye when it fundamentally can't work.

Why not?

[Kraftster]

With no time, there can be no motion.
With no time, there can also be no cause and effect.
With no motion, there can be no cause and effect.
With no cause and effect, there can be no motion.
Without motion and cause and effect our brains don't work. (if you buy that our brains and thought occur within the physical world at least)