Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Dream computations, was Re: A black cloud just before starting dreams? Date: 26 Oct 1999 21:40:18 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 77 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 De-lurking as this is now getting computery. Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > heaven eye wrote: > > > Aren't you both presupposing that the mind employs exactly the same > > computing techniques as a computer? Computing techniques have made > > great advances in the last 20 years, of couse, so has programming. > > Maybe we don't need huge amounts of RAM, parallel processing etc. > > computer memory or hypothetical brain memory - then this 3D data MUST be > processed into 2D data, as seen from the viewpoint in question > (including view angle and direction in question). No, it does not need to be converted. Simply directly use the 3D data. > all. 3D Computer games have it, and your brain also must have it in Computer games need 3D->2D, because they interface to the eyes, which are 2D input devices. Actually all VR needs to do this. > order to be able to simulate an interactive 3D environment. The brain > uses only 2D data, as supplied by the retina (except that the brain > reintroduces a small measure of 3D by the stereo effect). And there the error is. The Brain uses 3D internally. When viewing 2D (human eyes or robots video cameras) you get an bitmap. But then that has to be converted to 3D, a process known in robotics as feature extraction. Unlike 3D->2D (which is syntesising), 2D->3D is filtering, which is what the brain is so good at (and robots so bad :-)). The trick in dreaming is to feed the 3D dream scenes into the brain after the above filter, ergo direct 3D to 3D. No synthesising needed. And so no RTCP there (and we can regard filtering as an evidently solved RTCP for brains, we do it daily, robots don't yet). > case you can *reduce* the number of 3D transformation calculations > necessary, but at the cost of "blocky" objects without curved surfaces. > Needless to say, dreams/OBEs do not have this appearance.) And the blockyness (properly called pixelation) can also be avoided by directly feeding in the 3D data. The entire blockiness detector is in the 2D->3D filter and so bypassed. And of course also far better picture quality than in any VR or game. If you use the reference data used to detect blockiness (= deviation from reality) to make the artificial reality, there will be no deviations seen. In fact the hallmark of dreams is the lack af deviations, that is actually noticable as non-natural. This also explains the general lack of detail in dreams (unless one actually focuses on them, which results in them being recalled from memory and built into the experience, thus avoiding noticing that something is missing. > In order just to transform ONE 3D point into its 2D counterpart, a > complex matrix calculation, which consists of some 30 additions and Yes, a lot of calculations. But they are not needed. > This is why 3D games are one of the most demanding of all computer > applications. With the exemption of 3D CAD (where I work). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Message-ID: <38162BAD.D67DD3CF@Home.com> From: heaven eye Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-AtHome0405 (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations, was Re: A black cloud just before starting dreams? References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 88 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:29:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.226.43.9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 940976966 24.226.43.9 (Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:29:26 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:29:26 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!feeder.via.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Hi Neil - how are things in Switzerland? - I was there in '73 - lovely country Neil Franklin wrote: > > De-lurking as this is now getting computery. We need more "de-lurkers". > > Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > > > heaven eye wrote: > > > > > Aren't you both presupposing that the mind employs exactly the same > > > computing techniques as a computer? Computing techniques have made > > > great advances in the last 20 years, of couse, so has programming. > > > Maybe we don't need huge amounts of RAM, parallel processing etc. > > > > computer memory or hypothetical brain memory - then this 3D data MUST be > > processed into 2D data, as seen from the viewpoint in question > > (including view angle and direction in question). > > No, it does not need to be converted. Simply directly use the 3D data. > > > all. 3D Computer games have it, and your brain also must have it in > > Computer games need 3D->2D, because they interface to the eyes, which > are 2D input devices. Actually all VR needs to do this. > > > order to be able to simulate an interactive 3D environment. The brain > > uses only 2D data, as supplied by the retina (except that the brain > > reintroduces a small measure of 3D by the stereo effect). > > And there the error is. The Brain uses 3D internally. > Is this the crux of the problem? External vs. internal data reprocessing? > When viewing 2D (human eyes or robots video cameras) you get an > bitmap. But then that has to be converted to 3D, a process known in > robotics as feature extraction. Unlike 3D->2D (which is syntesising), > 2D->3D is filtering, which is what the brain is so good at (and > robots so bad :-)). > > The trick in dreaming is to feed the 3D dream scenes into the brain > after the above filter, ergo direct 3D to 3D. No synthesising needed. > And so no RTCP there (and we can regard filtering as an evidently > solved RTCP for brains, we do it daily, robots don't yet). > > > case you can *reduce* the number of 3D transformation calculations > > necessary, but at the cost of "blocky" objects without curved surfaces. > > Needless to say, dreams/OBEs do not have this appearance.) > > And the blockyness (properly called pixelation) can also be avoided by > directly feeding in the 3D data. The entire blockiness detector is in > the 2D->3D filter and so bypassed. > > And of course also far better picture quality than in any VR or game. > > If you use the reference data used to detect blockiness (= deviation > from reality) to make the artificial reality, there will be no > deviations seen. In fact the hallmark of dreams is the lack af > deviations, that is actually noticable as non-natural. > > This also explains the general lack of detail in dreams (unless one > actually focuses on them, which results in them being recalled from > memory and built into the experience, thus avoiding noticing that > something is missing. > > > In order just to transform ONE 3D point into its 2D counterpart, a > > complex matrix calculation, which consists of some 30 additions and > > Yes, a lot of calculations. But they are not needed. > > > This is why 3D games are one of the most demanding of all computer > > applications. > > With the exemption of 3D CAD (where I work). > Good post. Do you have an opinion re OOBE vs. lucid dreaming: and why are you interested? I am not trying to be *pushy*, just interested. Regards, TienYen ###### Message-ID: <38161862.1690@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations, was Re: A black cloud just before starting dreams? References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 940972058 207.103.34.8 (Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:07:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:07:38 EDT Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:08:50 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-x.support.nl!remarQ-easT!remarQ.com!supernews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > > De-lurking as this is now getting computery. Thank you for de-lurking! > If you use the reference data used to detect blockiness (= deviation > from reality) to make the artificial reality, there will be no > deviations seen. In fact the hallmark of dreams is the lack af > deviations, that is actually noticable as non-natural. > > This also explains the general lack of detail in dreams (unless one > actually focuses on them, which results in them being recalled from > memory and built into the experience, thus avoiding noticing that > something is missing. I do not have the expertise necessary to comment intelligently on the computer-technical parts of your posts, but I will concur with the above observation. Focusing attention on a dream scene does often sharpen its details. In many nonlucid dreams, we may not have the mental wherewithal even to notice that some of the details are missing or incorrect. ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:36:15 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 114 Message-ID: <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du84-26.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 941049286 24293 195.100.26.84 (27 Oct 1999 18:34:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Oct 1999 18:34:46 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hello Neil. Been away? Neil Franklin wrote: > > No, it does not need to be converted. Simply directly use the 3D data. Right. To my knowledge 3D data must be converted if you are to view it from any viewpoint. And I donīt see how you could view it at all otherwise. Iīm no bigot; of course I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain how on Earth one is to view 3D data directly? (with no viewpoint or direction, nor perspective) > Computer games need 3D->2D, because they interface to the eyes, which > are 2D input devices. Actually all VR needs to do this. Yes. And so must the "dream/OBE VR" supposedly done by the brain. The laws of perspective are valid in (most, at least) dreams/OBEs. This proves there must be a viewpoint. If there is a viewpoint there must be 3D->2D transformation. > And there the error is. The Brain uses 3D internally. Even if it does, it still has to transform it in order to produce a virtual image resembling anything from the eyes; that is one with perspective and a viewpoint. There is simply no way around it (AFAIK). > When viewing 2D (human eyes or robots video cameras) you get an > bitmap. But then that has to be converted to 3D, a process known in > robotics as feature extraction. Unlike 3D->2D (which is syntesising), > 2D->3D is filtering, which is what the brain is so good at (and > robots so bad :-)). Yes, but 2D->3D really was not what it was all about, was it? > The trick in dreaming is to feed the 3D dream scenes into the brain > after the above filter, ergo direct 3D to 3D. No synthesising needed. > And so no RTCP there (and we can regard filtering as an evidently > solved RTCP for brains, we do it daily, robots don't yet). If I understand you correctly you are talking about feeding 3D dream scenes into the brain, that is you are presuming they do not originate in the brain? If so, then I agree. What I have been trying to do is to demonstrate why it would be impossible for the brain to *simulate* a dynamic, interactive, real-time 3D environment. The computation requirements are way too high, simply put. (Of course, any pre-computed counterpart is even more ludicrous, because of the truly astronomical storage capacity needed.) > And the blockyness (properly called pixelation) can also be avoided by > directly feeding in the 3D data. The entire blockiness detector is in > the 2D->3D filter and so bypassed. I donīt think we are talking about the same thing here. The blockiness I am talking about results from having too few facets on curved surfaces. You can have an incredible pixel-resolution, but it would still be blocky. > And of course also far better picture quality than in any VR or game. That goes without saying. ;-) > If you use the reference data used to detect blockiness (= deviation > from reality) to make the artificial reality, there will be no > deviations seen. In fact the hallmark of dreams is the lack af > deviations, that is actually noticable as non-natural. Strange. My dreams typically have quite a lot of deviations. As a matter of fact this is one way to recognize them as dreams and getting lucid. > This also explains the general lack of detail in dreams (unless one > actually focuses on them, which results in them being recalled from > memory and built into the experience, thus avoiding noticing that > something is missing. > > > In order just to transform ONE 3D point into its 2D counterpart, a > > complex matrix calculation, which consists of some 30 additions and > > Yes, a lot of calculations. But they are not needed. But they are, IMHO and AFAIK, *if* one insists that the brain *simulates* dreams/OBEs. OTOH, if one presumes they has an objective reality of some sort, like I do, then they are of course not needed. > > This is why 3D games are one of the most demanding of all computer > > applications. > > With the exemption of 3D CAD (where I work). Yeah. I was thinking of the type of applications ordinary people use on their PC:s and Macs. Of course there are even more demanding applications, like movie special effects, weather forecasts, nuclear explosion simulation, SETI data reduction, RC5 cracking, and modeling the gravitational evolution of the Universe. See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations, was Re: A black cloud just before starting dr eams? Date: 27 Oct 1999 21:28:24 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 51 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u1zagiox3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38162BAD.D67DD3CF@Home.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 heaven eye writes: > > Hi Neil - how are things in Switzerland? - I was there in '73 - lovely > country Fine at the moment. We actually had blue sky and sun today (seldom in October/November time, usually an fog layer at about 1000m). > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > De-lurking as this is now getting computery. > > We need more "de-lurkers". Well I do it occasionally (OK, my computer says 210 times since Dec 1997 in a.oob). But it has been hardly anything lately. > > > order to be able to simulate an interactive 3D environment. The brain > > > uses only 2D data, as supplied by the retina (except that the brain > > > reintroduces a small measure of 3D by the stereo effect). > > > > And there the error is. The Brain uses 3D internally. > > > > Is this the crux of the problem? External vs. internal data > reprocessing? Essentially, yes. See the explanations in the follow up post to Gunnar. > Do you have an opinion re OOBE vs. lucid dreaming: At the moment I am still fully open. The scientific part of me (I am an ex-skeptic) says LD, the feelings part wants it to be OBE. I will most likely only settle to one side after having an OBE myself (not had one yet, mainly due to being too lazy to try regularly, I did once get the vibrations). > and why > are you interested? In OBE in generall. Actually a.oob is simply the best group for all parapsychological and spiritual stuff I have come across. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations Date: 27 Oct 1999 22:44:20 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 219 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Been away? Not much actually (1.5 Weeks at end of August). Mainly I have been fighting reoccuring (and sometimes long) news server problems. And in October there have been no threads for me to participate in (as an not-yet-OBE-experienced). > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > No, it does not need to be converted. Simply directly use the 3D data. > > Right. To my knowledge 3D data must be converted if you are to view it > from any viewpoint. And I donīt see how you could view it at all > otherwise. Well I suppose that depends on the definition of "viewing". If you define it strictly as the entire process from object-eye-brain, then you would need to make 3D->2D to feed it in. But I was using it in a more looser sense of the conciousness "viewing" a scene (as represente din the brain, after filtering input). > Iīm no bigot; of course I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain how > on Earth one is to view 3D data directly? (with no viewpoint or > direction, nor perspective) OK. Take as an example normal viewing (say of your keyboard) there you have got an entire series of transformations: photons->nerveimpulses (eye), pixelmap->surfaces, surfaces->volumes, volumes->objects, objects->scene, etc. In the end the last stage in the brain (either the conciousness processor in pure material belief or the physical/astral interface in occult belief) you get the fully refind data. This will be something like "my keybord, key enter pressed, viewed from front above, slightly from side, a bit dirty, ...". There is no 2D data left here. My view of the brain ist, that memory also only stores such refined data. So assuming one is dreaming/LDing the dream generator would be taking such "featurelists" (or more likely "featurewebs") from memory and feeding them directly to the "last stage". Nowhere in this process would there be an 3D->2D, nor the existing 2D->3D mechanism involved. > > Computer games need 3D->2D, because they interface to the eyes, which > > are 2D input devices. Actually all VR needs to do this. > > Yes. And so must the "dream/OBE VR" supposedly done by the brain. If the brain were doing an detour via the entire input filter system. But I think that it completely bypasses this. Note, that if we _assume_ LD to be the right explanation for OBE phenomena (and so the entirely material brain theory) then there would really be no reason for evolution to provide such an expensive or impossible 3D->2D translator, while direct memory to conciousness would be so simple to implement (even accidentally as side effect). > > And there the error is. The Brain uses 3D internally. > > Even if it does, it still has to transform it in order to produce a > virtual image resembling anything from the eyes; that is one with > perspective and a viewpoint. There is simply no way around it (AFAIK). No way, if it does go via an eye-like image. But an direct connection if it just passes around featurelists/webs would go. > > When viewing 2D (human eyes or robots video cameras) you get an > > bitmap. But then that has to be converted to 3D, a process known in > > robotics as feature extraction. Unlike 3D->2D (which is syntesising), > > 2D->3D is filtering, which is what the brain is so good at (and > > robots so bad :-)). > > Yes, but 2D->3D really was not what it was all about, was it? That block was just the intro to the following one. :-) > > The trick in dreaming is to feed the 3D dream scenes into the brain > > after the above filter, ergo direct 3D to 3D. No synthesising needed. > > And so no RTCP there (and we can regard filtering as an evidently > > solved RTCP for brains, we do it daily, robots don't yet). > > If I understand you correctly you are talking about feeding 3D dream > scenes into the brain, that is you are presuming they do not originate > in the brain? Oops, that was imprecisely written. I was using "brain" there for the conciousness bit of the brain. Of course they are coming from memory via interbrain connection. This all of course assuming an purely physical system (as the LD interpretations supporters are talking about). For an astral/OBE interpretation I would actually assume the entire astral world to consist of an telepathic exchange of featurelists/webs, no actual 3D or 2D at all (as there is no real space there, nor actual eyes working on projected light). > If so, then I agree. What I have been trying to do is to demonstrate why > it would be impossible for the brain to *simulate* a dynamic, > interactive, real-time 3D environment. Actually the brain can model the scene. It cannot convert to 2D, as you rightly said. But it would not need to. So as an reason to ditch the LD theory (which is what I remember the first post in this subthread to be about) this argumentation fails, by not applying. > The computation requirements are > way too high, simply put. (Of course, any pre-computed counterpart is > even more ludicrous, because of the truly astronomical storage capacity > needed.) Of course. Storing 2D would be ludicrous. The same I also think that storing frames for time representation is also out, rather history-lists of change-events attached to the features. > > And the blockyness (properly called pixelation) can also be avoided by > > directly feeding in the 3D data. The entire blockiness detector is in > > the 2D->3D filter and so bypassed. > > I donīt think we are talking about the same thing here. The blockiness I > am talking about results from having too few facets on curved surfaces. OK, that is an known CG problem, damn polygons. But that would also not be an problem with direct featurelists, because you never get to an object->volume->surfaces transformation (and so no polygons) and do not utilise the corresponding filtering path (with its blockiness detector) either. > You can have an incredible pixel-resolution, but it would still be > blocky. Sure. I only need to play Quake on this 1564x1152 screen :-). > > If you use the reference data used to detect blockiness (= deviation > > from reality) to make the artificial reality, there will be no > > deviations seen. In fact the hallmark of dreams is the lack af > > deviations, that is actually noticable as non-natural. > > Strange. My dreams typically have quite a lot of deviations. As a matter > of fact this is one way to recognize them as dreams and getting lucid. Deviations in behaviour (including stability)? I have them also. Or in actual visuals of an single known object? > > Yes, a lot of calculations. But they are not needed. > > But they are, IMHO and AFAIK, *if* one insists that the brain > *simulates* dreams/OBEs. If it simulates by looping back at the bitmap level. But not if it loopbacks at the featurelist level. Which is what I would expect the brain to do, in dreams and LDs (and in the LD interpretation of OBEs). Appropos being away: One of the things I did in the unused time was visit your website, and that purely by accident(!). And now the first discussion after coming back is with you. Yet annother synchronity to add to some strange events. As people here on a.oob like stories, here it is: I lost a.oob for the entire length of July. So to fill time I added annother NG, rec.art.books.tolkien (and have kept it, its good). In that I came after about 1 or 2 weeks to an thread where one writer claimed to have head about people living today claiming to be real elves. Having time (and interest in elves, all traditions) I went to my favourite search machine and typed "real elves" and promply got 2 of their sites: http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/worlow4/Lanthinel/sidhe.htm http://www.wildmuse.net/sileniel/ And found there discussions about past life regressions, non human lives, astral world, spirits embodying themselves, etc, reminded me of nothing more than Julias "past lives, some may be non human" thread. Exactly a.oob stuff, after being out of a.oob. First queer thing in the series. Well, one of the pages had at the bottom an comic picture of an elf, of which I was sure, that it was an type I had seen before. So I went looking for comics about elves. That returned pointers to Elfquest. So I searched for that and get as one of the links: http://www.algonet.se/~dervak/ElfQuest.html When I download the page there is: "Elfquest portraits copyright 1997 Gunnar Ljungstrand". Hey, I have seen that name before ... a.oob! Off into my archives, yes dervak@algonet.se. Well an fellow a.oob-er also interested in elves. Then I dived into the pages (very nice, btw.) I found the bit on the Sun Folk and 2 of them doing OBEs. Aha! I wonder if an non-OBEer would have written it like that. Now I am back here and the first discussion is with: you. This planet is shrinking, or I have hit a dense part of the relationship world. BTW the comic elf was not an Elfquest one. They have hair strains drawn by multiple hues, while his were one-hue with black lines for stucturing: http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/worlow4/Lanthinel/arisiab3.gif -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Message-ID: <3817C22A.60B2@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com> <380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net> <380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se> <380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se> <380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se> <380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se> <3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se> <3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com> <38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941081057 207.103.34.8 (Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:24:17 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:24:17 EDT Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:25:31 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > > > Having time (and interest in elves, all traditions) I went to my > favourite search machine and typed "real elves" and promply got 2 > of their sites: Some of my lucid dream characters have claimed to be elves.