From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:54:08 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 290 Message-ID: <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@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> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du226-27.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941140358 20109 195.100.27.226 (28 Oct 1999 19:52:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Oct 1999 19:52:39 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!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.tli.de!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > > Not much actually (1.5 Weeks at end of August). Mainly I have been > fighting reoccuring (and sometimes long) news server problems. Someone installed NT on the servers or what? ;-) > And in October there have been no threads for me to participate in (as > an not-yet-OBE-experienced). Oh. Iīm sorry for you. OTOH you have something to look forward to. ;-) I am certain you will eventually succeed, though it is by no means easy. Personally I have had some 200 OBEs, but I still canīt say I can contol them very well, let alone inducing them at will. Often there are long periods (a month or more) with no OBE at all. :-( > OK. Take as an example normal viewing (say of your keyboard) there you > have got an entire series of transformations: > photons->nerveimpulses (eye), Here the brain gets two sets of pixelmaps (the cells in the retina being roughly equivalent to pixels, no matter their varying size and more chaotic arrangement). > pixelmap->surfaces, Brain interpreting areas of similar color as surfaces. > surfaces->volumes, Brain interpreting some adjacent areas as being parts of a volume, assisted to some extent by stereo. > volumes->objects, Brain interpreting some adjacent volumes as being parts of an object, assisted to some extent by stereo. > objects->scene, etc. Brain assigning various objects to places in the scene, based on known size vs apparent, stereo, focus, obscuration etc. Comprehension of the scene. > 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 refined data. This will be something > like "my keyboard, key enter pressed, viewed from front above, slightly > from side, a bit dirty, ...". There is no 2D data left here. I follow you. On... > My view of the brain is, 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. Sorry Neil, but I still have to take exception to this. It is indeed possible that the brain could store such refined data, such as "my keyboard, key enter pressed, viewed from front above, slightly from side, a bit dirty, ...". The bottom line is that a memory of this kind only can be used to reconstruct (simulate) that very keyboard in *exactly that configuration*. There is no way you could use this memory to simulate: "My keyboard, viewed from back below, slightly to the right, ...". Not even when you skip the dynamic part (keys pressed, dirty etc.). In your example of the memory trace there is no information about e.g. how the keyboard looks on the underside. In other words this kind of memory traces could never be *interactive*. The only possible way to store an interactive 3D world is still, IMO and AFAIK, 3D coordinates, and such have to be transformed if they are to be viewed at all. > If the brain were doing an detour via the entire input filter system. > But I think that it completely bypasses this. You still havenīt convinced me how it might be doing this. For static memories? Certainly it would work. Dynamic memories (like short videos)? Quite possible. Interactive 3D? Now, thatīs another thing entirely. > 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, Quite. My point, really. > while direct memory to consciousness would be so simple to implement > (even accidentally as side effect). You still havenīt explained how this "direct memory to consciousness" thing could possibly work interactively. > No way, if it does go via an eye-like image. But an direct connection > if it just passes around featurelists/webs would go. Featurelists/webs would still only store information about how objects look from *certain directions and distances*. In an interactive world you need to be able to look at everything from *any* direction, angle and distance. > 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). I see. > 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 Perhaps not, but it is still *interpreted* as such by the brain/mind/consciousness/whatever. If I, while OBE, perceives something that looks like a tree - even if this Astral "tree" in actuality does not exist in anything resembling 3D spacetime - it still is interpreted as a tree in 3D dimensions by my consciousness. Then, my consciousness must somehow be able to simulate a 3D tree for my experience. It can only do this interactively if there is some 3D model of a tree somewhere - in physical memory in the brain or in immaterial memory elsewhere. Then this 3D data must be transformed in order to be able to be viewed. I can accept the possibility that the 3D data is stored somewhere else as well as it is transformed by some infinitely fast "processor" somewhere, which then feeds the info to the mind to view the "tree". However, I find it rather simpler to assume that the tree really has form, in 3 or whatever number of dimensions, and that I really am *viewing* it in some way. > (as there is no real space there, nor actual eyes working on projected > light). How do you know that? > 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) Thatīs correct, yes. > this argumentation fails, by not applying. I still donīt think so. > 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. This could work for dreams or OBEs like movies, with no control, that is non-interactive ones. > 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. I still cannot see how this method in any way could bypass transformation if it is to be interactive. > Sure. I only need to play Quake on this 1564x1152 screen :-). Right. Or on my 1600x1200 one. Better to get a graphics card with onboard hardware T&L. That way the game may have 5-10 times as many polygons and still leave cycles for the CPU to use for AI, physics, deformations etc. > Deviations in behaviour (including stability)? I have them also. Or in > actual visuals of an single known object? Well yes, in a way. In one dream I was up at the observatory (where I work some evenings) when I suddenly realized that the view from the hill where it is was *wrong*. I said to myself: "This is wrong. You do not see the river when looking in *that* direction." Then I realized that it was a dream and became lucid, and tried it out by lifting into the air... > 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). You know, I still do not understand how your featurelist model in any way can be interactive, but in case I am wrong - why then are they not using that kind of model in CG? > 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. No kidding! > 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. Well, yes I am. (Actually I probably should update that site a bit, but I have so many other things to do...) > Then I dived into the pages (very nice, btw.) Thanks. I made them some years on my Amiga, pixel by pixel. > 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. Indeed, I suspect Wendy Pini (the author) probably has had OBEs. I met and chatted with her in 1993, but alas, this was before my own OBEs, so I did not think to ask her of this at the time. BTW, I first encountered the whole concept of OBEs in ElfQuest. So thereīs a connection all right. Another thing - I have never encountered any elf in an OBE, though I would very much like to. (In a few dreams yes, but no lucid ones.) (I guess this is yet another piece of evidence pointing to the objectiveness of the OBE environment. If it was subjective one would think that this strong desire would have "produced" a few elves at some point.) > 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. It would seem so. ;-) > 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 See you out there... /Gunnar P.S. BTW Neil, do you read UserFriendly? ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### Message-ID: <381940F5.DDE@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 and elves 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941179051 207.103.34.8 (Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:37:31 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:37:31 EDT Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:38:45 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!newsfeed.tli.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > > while direct memory to consciousness would be so simple to implement > > (even accidentally as side effect). > > You still havenīt explained how this "direct memory to consciousness" > thing could possibly work interactively. Just to throw something in here. We've been talking as if the memory theoretically utilized for generating dream scenes would all be visual. Suppose there is such a thing as motor pattern or kinesthetic memory as well, which is working on another level and coordinating with the visual memory? I know that when I am dreaming lucidly and there is no scene, I can act as if a specific one is present by imagining it is there and picking up items that I would find there, then eventually the scene forms around me. Even in a fully realized scene, I can pretend I am somewhere else, keep a well-known route firmly in mind as I walk, and eventually the scene will warp into the desired one. > I can accept the possibility that the 3D data is stored somewhere else > as well as it is transformed by some infinitely fast "processor" > somewhere, which then feeds the info to the mind to view the "tree". > However, I find it rather simpler to assume that the tree really has > form, in 3 or whatever number of dimensions, and that I really am > *viewing* it in some way. If you were to walk around the tree, examine the other side for a while, then walk back to the first side again, though, I would bet that details of its appearance will have changed on the first side, without you making any effort to do so. Or if you were to face the tree for a while, turn 180 degrees and look off at a nearby house or something for a minute, then turn back 180 degrees again, your tree may well have disappeared. So the brain's 3D environmental simulations, if such they are, don't have to be all that perfect. > Another thing - I have never encountered any elf in an OBE, though I > would very much like to. (In a few dreams yes, but no lucid ones.) > > (I guess this is yet another piece of evidence pointing to the > objectiveness of the OBE environment. If it was subjective one would > think that this strong desire would have "produced" a few elves at some > point.) Well, *I* have "encountered" them in OBEs. Have you ever looked for them? Desire alone isn't always enough to create a dream image. Context and expectation help considerably. Try EXPECTING to find an elf in an OBE. Ask the people you encounter where elves are to be found in this locale, etc. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: 29 Oct 1999 23:38:43 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 210 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6ubt9h3l0c.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> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Not much actually (1.5 Weeks at end of August). Mainly I have been > > fighting reoccuring (and sometimes long) news server problems. > > Someone installed NT on the servers or what? ;-) No, they changed from inn to dnews this spring. And that has an "only load groups people are reading" mechanism. For some reason the exact sequence of commands my news downloader uses does not register as reading :-(. So groups I am the only one reading tend to vanish. Now that I know what the problem is, I can simply telnet to the news server an tickle it whenever a group disappears. > > occult belief) you get the fully refined data. This will be something > > like "my keyboard, key enter pressed, viewed from front above, slightly > > from side, a bit dirty, ...". There is no 2D data left here. > > I follow you. On... > > > My view of the brain is, 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. > > It is indeed possible that the brain could store such refined data, such > as "my keyboard, key enter pressed, viewed from front above, slightly > from side, a bit dirty, ...". > > The bottom line is that a memory of this kind only can be used to > reconstruct (simulate) that very keyboard in *exactly that > configuration*. There is no way you could use this memory to simulate: > > "My keyboard, viewed from back below, slightly to the right, ...". I think you are right there. The brain must be storing at all levels of the aforementioned transformation (how else could one recall how something looks like?). > even when you skip the dynamic part (keys pressed, dirty etc.). In your > example of the memory trace there is no information about e.g. how the > keyboard looks on the underside. For that there would actually have to be an entire series of pictures (or more likely of small picture elements (a generic key, particular prints for the keys, the manufacturer logo, etc). I would assume that each of these pieces would be stored as texture and outline shape. With more views the object gets more t/os pairs added to it. > In other words this kind of memory traces could never be *interactive*. > The only possible way to store an interactive 3D world is still, IMO and > AFAIK, 3D coordinates, and such have to be transformed if they are to be > viewed at all. To recreate a word from any angle one would have to use as near as fitting t/os pair (after doing hidden object removal) that are then scaled to fit the desired angle (quasi texture mapping). Hmmm. for that we _are_ going to need quite a bit of 3D, at last that to calculate the scaling factors. So we need at least an geometry engine. OK, SGI fits that into pure hardware on an Onyx, so our brains should fit that. > For static memories? Certainly it would work. > Dynamic memories (like short videos)? Quite possible. > Interactive 3D? Now, thatīs another thing entirely. The question ist though, do we need to actually render 3D->2D? I still doubt that. > > really be no reason for evolution to provide such an expensive or > > impossible 3D->2D translator, > > Quite. My point, really. And still not neccessary for dreaming. > Then, my consciousness must somehow be able to simulate a 3D tree for my > experience. It can only do this interactively if there is some 3D model > of a tree somewhere - in physical memory in the brain or in immaterial > memory elsewhere. Then this 3D data must be transformed in order to be > able to be viewed. I agree with the need for an 3D model, but not with the actual rendering to 2D pixelmap. > I can accept the possibility that the 3D data is stored somewhere else > as well as it is transformed by some infinitely fast "processor" The 3D geometry translations would be well within what nerve cells can calculate. It is an massively parallelisable algorithm and we do have quite a bit of calculating power at hand (ca 10000-30000 neurons = 1MFLOPS, and we about 10000000000 of them, so about 300000-1000000 MFLOPS) of which somewhere around 30% seems to be video related. > somewhere, which then feeds the info to the mind to view the "tree". > However, I find it rather simpler to assume that the tree really has > form, in 3 or whatever number of dimensions, and that I really am > *viewing* it in some way. Viewing the 3D, but not a 2D pixmap. > > (as there is no real space there, nor actual eyes working on projected > > light). > > How do you know that? Not really know, just deduced from the various "no real space or time in astral world" mentionings on a.oob. May be an wrong inpression I got. > > this argumentation fails, by not applying. > > I still donīt think so. The 3D->2D part (which I remember being the contention) I still regard as unnecessary, even with an 3D model and texture mapping. > > Sure. I only need to play Quake on this 1564x1152 screen :-). > > Right. Or on my 1600x1200 one. You have an better video card than I have. Mine starts on vibrating horizontally in the bottom part of the screen when I do that (actually in those lines coming from the second 4MByte on the expansion card). > Better to get a graphics card with > onboard hardware T&L. I still have an old dumb framebuffer with nothing more than 2D panning and fill acceleration (Matrox Millennium I). Still waiting for real 3D support and drivers in Linux before deciding on an new card. > *wrong*. I said to myself: "This is wrong. You do not see the river when > looking in *that* direction." Then I realized that it was a dream and > became lucid, and tried it out by lifting into the air... Cool, just entering like that. I have not yet had an LD either. Oh, and also astronomically interested. (Solar eclipse was an real wipeout, I got thick cloud in Stuttgart (in totality, about 100km north of where I live), and the Perseids were also clouds, and they would have been great at 1000m in the mountains). > > 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. > > No kidding! Here the thread (I forgot to give the URL for it): http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/19990803_Elves_in_Black > > into my archives, yes dervak@algonet.se. Well an fellow a.oob-er also > > interested in elves. > > Well, yes I am. (Actually I probably should update that site a bit, but > I have so many other things to do...) Now where do I know that one from? :-) My site has 3 empty directories, where projects started and got nowhere (opinions, archery, roleplaying). Too much usenetting... :-) > Thanks. I made them some years on my Amiga, pixel by pixel. Damn good artwork for an pixel editor, particularly the shading. > > 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. > > BTW, I first encountered the whole concept of OBEs in ElfQuest. So > thereīs a connection all right. :-) > P.S. BTW Neil, do you read UserFriendly? Erm, yes, it is on my Netscape startup page. Why do you ask? Was ist the Tolkien reference? If so: http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/19991020_Tolkien_in_Geekland I have been splitting my sides from laughing at it. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:44:40 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 69 Message-ID: <3819DD08.77AD3F74@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> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du31-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941218987 24298 195.100.91.31 (29 Oct 1999 17:43:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Oct 1999 17:43:07 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!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Janice, Janice wrote: > > Just to throw something in here. We've been talking as if the memory > theoretically utilized for generating dream scenes would all be visual. > Suppose there is such a thing as motor pattern or kinesthetic memory as > well, Iīm sorry Janice, I donīt follow you here. Could you please explain what is meant by motor pattern and kinestethic memory? > which is working on another level and coordinating with the visual > memory? I know that when I am dreaming lucidly and there is no scene, > I can act as if a specific one is present by imagining it is there and > picking up items that I would find there, then eventually the scene > forms around me. Even in a fully realized scene, I can pretend I am > somewhere else, keep a well-known route firmly in mind as I walk, and > eventually the scene will warp into the desired one. (I understand what youīre talking about, though being slightly confused as to what the point is.) > If you were to walk around the tree, examine the other side for a > while, then walk back to the first side again, though, I would bet that > details of its appearance will have changed on the first side, without > you making any effort to do so. Or if you were to face the tree for a > while, turn 180 degrees and look off at a nearby house or something for > a minute, then turn back 180 degrees again, your tree may well have > disappeared. Yes. Possibly, perhaps even probably. > So the brain's 3D environmental simulations, if such they are, don't > have to be all that perfect. Iīll concede that, but they still canīt be *that* crappy (they are usually quite normal, when it comes to perspective changes etc.). OTOH, this effect could just as well be attributed to the general "softness" and volatility of the "Astral". > Well, *I* have "encountered" them in OBEs. Cool. :-) Care to elaborate...? > Have you ever looked for them? Well, not really. As you undoubtedly know yourself, it is not very easy to stay focused on some premeditated task. There usually are so much more exciting things to do... ;-) > Desire alone isn't always enough to create a dream image. Context and > expectation help considerably. Try EXPECTING to find an elf in an OBE. > Ask the people you encounter where elves are to be found in this > locale, etc. Thanks. I will try to do this. See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: "Jay" Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: 29 Oct 1999 23:19:43 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: <01bf2264$425f9ea0$792267cf@default> 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><3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: async121.starlinx.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 You guys seem to have made this whole issue rather complicated. I would like to try to simplify it a bit. Take a keyboard for instance. Close your eyes and imagine what it looks like. Hit the keys in your imagination. Pick the whole thing up and turn it over in your mind. Visualize where the cord attaches. Set it down again and hear the clunk against your imaginary desk. See what I mean? The mind *can* create complex visualizations, regardless of the question of *how* it does it. The only thing different in dreams, in my opinion, is that we forget we are just imagining things, we lack lucidity. ###### Message-ID: <381A7E94.B70@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 and elves 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><3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <01bf2264$425f9ea0$792267cf@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941260360 207.103.34.8 (Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:12:40 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:12:40 EDT Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:13:56 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Jay wrote: > > You guys seem to have made this whole issue rather complicated. I would > like to try to simplify it a bit. > > Take a keyboard for instance. Close your eyes and imagine what it looks > like. Hit the keys in your imagination. Pick the whole thing up and turn > it over in your mind. Visualize where the cord attaches. Set it down > again and hear the clunk against your imaginary desk. See what I mean? > The mind *can* create complex visualizations, regardless of the question of > *how* it does it. > > The only thing different in dreams, in my opinion, is that we forget we are > just imagining things, we lack lucidity. There is an additional difference. In dreams, thanks to the lack of strong sensory input, what we imagine seems more vivid than it does when we imagine things while awake. ###### Message-ID: <381A947C.7D0A@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 and elves 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 99 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941265975 207.103.34.8 (Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:46:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:46:15 EDT Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:47:24 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > Just to throw something in here. We've been talking as if the memory > > theoretically utilized for generating dream scenes would all be visual. > > Suppose there is such a thing as motor pattern or kinesthetic memory as > > well, > > Iīm sorry Janice, I donīt follow you here. Could you please explain what > is meant by motor pattern and kinestethic memory? It's just something I'm hypothesizing, a kind of memory of standard movement patterns such as walking and running through 3D space. Perhaps the brain stores a relatively limited number of these patterns plus some standard 3D shape concepts, and the apparent visual complexity of dream scenes is really just an overlay on this base. The kinesthetic layer of dreams seems more primary than the visual layer to me, considering how often dreams start out or fade to dark yet I still have a sense of moving through space. In other words, as long as it feels like we are moving through space, the visuals will usually respond as if we really were doing so, to keep up the 3D illusion. Anyway, it's just something I'm thinking about. > > which is working on another level and coordinating with the visual > > memory? I know that when I am dreaming lucidly and there is no scene, > > I can act as if a specific one is present by imagining it is there and > > picking up items that I would find there, then eventually the scene > > forms around me. Even in a fully realized scene, I can pretend I am > > somewhere else, keep a well-known route firmly in mind as I walk, and > > eventually the scene will warp into the desired one. > > (I understand what youīre talking about, though being slightly confused > as to what the point is.) The point is that simply acting out familiar motions creates and changes objects and whole scenes in dreams. If I pretend I have a bicycle in a dream and start pedaling away, I soon start to feel and then even see the bicycle. How then could it objectively exist, when I created it simply by acting as if it was present? I didn't find it or even conjure it (one could argue that conjuring is really summoning it from somewhere else in the dream world); I made it from scratch, gradually. > > If you were to walk around the tree, examine the other side for a > > while, then walk back to the first side again, though, I would bet that > > details of its appearance will have changed on the first side, without > > you making any effort to do so. Or if you were to face the tree for a > > while, turn 180 degrees and look off at a nearby house or something for > > a minute, then turn back 180 degrees again, your tree may well have > > disappeared. > > Yes. Possibly, perhaps even probably. So, if the tree objectively exists, where did it go? > > So the brain's 3D environmental simulations, if such they are, don't > > have to be all that perfect. > > Iīll concede that, but they still canīt be *that* crappy (they are > usually quite normal, when it comes to perspective changes etc.). I wish I could say the same. I have many lucid dreams in which objects and people remain the same size despite our coming closer together, with the result that I'll arrive at buildings that are dollhouse size by the time I get there, a frustrating effect. I have also had some dreams where I proceed ahead but the scene before me remains in the distance. > > Well, *I* have "encountered" them in OBEs. > > Cool. :-) Care to elaborate...? There is a whole clan of humanoid elves living in one area in the OBE/lucid dream version of my town; at least they sometimes speak of themselves as elves and respond when referred to as such. I get involved in little adventures with them sometimes, such as spying on a stranger and more powerful clan of beings from another area with whom they battle sometimes. Athough to be honest I have liked some of those guys too. They have a penchant for dressing up in black cloaks like Tolkien's Nazgul and riding around on black horses looking menacing, but they're really OK for the most part. A couple of the elves were doing some very strange but fun magic in the park today. They had some magic balloons and were letting children grab onto the strings and be lifted high in the air. > Well, not really. As you undoubtedly know yourself, it is not very easy > to stay focused on some premeditated task. There usually are so much > more exciting things to do... ;-) True, but looking for elves is such a fun idea that it might stick. > > Desire alone isn't always enough to create a dream image. Context and > > expectation help considerably. Try EXPECTING to find an elf in an OBE. > > Ask the people you encounter where elves are to be found in this > > locale, etc. > > Thanks. I will try to do this. Hope you find them. Or perhaps they will find you? :) ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:59:54 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 106 Message-ID: <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@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> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du42-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941288298 6504 195.100.91.42 (30 Oct 1999 12:58:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 1999 12:58:18 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!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Janice, Janice wrote: > > It's just something I'm hypothesizing, a kind of memory of standard > movement patterns such as walking and running through 3D space. > Perhaps the brain stores a relatively limited number of these patterns > plus some standard 3D shape concepts, and the apparent visual > complexity of dream scenes is really just an overlay on this base. The > kinesthetic layer of dreams seems more primary than the visual layer to > me, considering how often dreams start out or fade to dark yet I still > have a sense of moving through space. As for myself dreams do not do this, but OBEs often do. While OBE I often have this thing I call "Proxysense". This is a kind of sense where you still perceive your velocity, orientation, direction and position (compared to other nearby objects). You also sense the whereabouts and general shape of larger objects (walls, furniture etc.) while not touching them. The sense seems to reach out only a short distance, hence the name (some 10 m or thereabouts). Perhaps it feels similar to how electric eels feel other fish through a disturbance in their electrical field. (Speculation: This might be a clue as to how it works - perhaps we have an extended Astral body, or aura, that we feel disturbances in.) > In other words, as long as it feels like we are moving through space, > the visuals will usually respond as if we really were doing so, to keep > up the 3D illusion. > > Anyway, it's just something I'm thinking about. Ok. I get it. > The point is that simply acting out familiar motions creates and > changes objects and whole scenes in dreams. If I pretend I have a > bicycle in a dream and start pedaling away, I soon start to feel and > then even see the bicycle. How then could it objectively exist, when I > created it simply by acting as if it was present? I didn't find it or > even conjure it Perhaps one could say that pretending you had it is conjuring it. > (one could argue that conjuring is really summoning it from somewhere > else in the dream world); I made it from scratch, gradually. It could be that, yes. > So, if the tree objectively exists, where did it go? Perhaps it faded back into formless energy once I, or someone else, stopped concentrating on it. Take an electromagnet and put a paper on top of it. Now sprinkle iron filings there and switch on the magnet. You can clearly see the field lines, or rather the filings outlining the invisible field lines. Does this pattern have an objective existence? Now switch off the magnet and shake the paper. Where did the pattern go? See what Iīm trying to get to? My hypothesis is that the Astral matter in its natural state is invisible and without form. However, minds and thoughts can mold it into whatever shape, including likenesses of physical objects. When you stop upholding the "object" it becomes fragile, however, and may disappear at any disturbance. > I wish I could say the same. I have many lucid dreams in which objects > and people remain the same size despite our coming closer together, > with the result that I'll arrive at buildings that are dollhouse size > by the time I get there, a frustrating effect. No kidding! I have never (AFAIK) had that kind of dream. > I have also had some dreams where I proceed ahead but the scene before > me remains in the distance. > > There is a whole clan of humanoid elves living in one area in the > OBE/lucid dream version of my town; at least they sometimes speak of > themselves as elves and respond when referred to as such. Do they look like elves? I mean, pointy ears and big, slanted eyes etc.? > I get involved in little adventures with them sometimes, such as spying > on a stronger and more powerful clan of beings from another area with > whom they battle sometimes. Athough to be honest I have liked some of > those guys too. They have a penchant for dressing up in black cloaks > like Tolkien's Nazgul and riding around on black horses looking > menacing, but they're really OK for the most part. I see. The Elves vs the Black Riders. Sounds kinda archetypal. ;-) > Hope you find them. Or perhaps they will find you? :) Any is acceptable. :-) See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:00:00 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 152 Message-ID: <381AEBD0.41C9102A@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> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du42-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941288302 6504 195.100.91.42 (30 Oct 1999 12:58:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 1999 12:58:22 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!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!f.de.uu.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Neil, Neil Franklin wrote: > > There is no way you could use this memory to simulate: "My keyboard, > viewed from back below, slightly to the right, ...". > > I think you are right there. The brain must be storing at all levels > of the aforementioned transformation (how else could one recall how > something looks like?). Yes. > For that there would actually have to be an entire series of > pictures (or more likely of small picture elements (a generic key, > particular prints for the keys, the manufacturer logo, etc). I would > assume that each of these pieces would be stored as texture and > outline shape. With more views the object gets more t/os pairs > added to it. We donīt know if it uses textures or geometry for everything. It is possible that various "cheats" are employed, however; textures, bump maps, specularity maps etc. This would save a bit on processing power but increase memory requirements (There is no free lunch). Still, it might work satisfactorily. > To recreate a word from any angle one would have to use as near as > fitting t/os pair (after doing hidden object removal) that are then > scaled to fit the desired angle (quasi texture mapping). > > Hmmm. for that we _are_ going to need quite a bit of 3D, at last that > to calculate the scaling factors. So we need at least an geometry > engine. OK, SGI fits that into pure hardware on an Onyx, so our brains > should fit that. Right. > I agree with the need for an 3D model, but not with the actual > rendering to 2D pixelmap. Since the retina generates a "pixelmap" of a kind, donīt you think that the sight center in the brain somehow is "hardwired" for this kind of information? > The 3D geometry translations would be well within what nerve cells can > calculate. It is an massively parallelisable algorithm Well, yes. > and we do have quite a bit of calculating power at hand (ca 10000-30000 > neurons = 1MFLOPS, This would mean one neuron can do 30-100 FLOPS. This sounds awfully high. The speed is limited by the velocity of the electro-chemical connections (nerve impulses travel no faster than a few 100 m/s) as well as the rate of the actual "processing". Also, one would imagine that it takes more than one neuron to perform a FLOP (it certainly takes more than one transistor in microchips). > and we about 10000000000 of them, so about 300000-1000000 MFLOPS) of > which somewhere around 30% seems to be video related. If 30% are used for this and the above speed is correct, then you have 100-300 GFLOPS. As comparison the new advanced consumer-level 3D graphics card Nvidia GeForce256 with internal T&L boasts some 50 GFLOPS). While games using this is very impressive by todayīs standards (some 100000 polys with a framerate of 30) they are still miles away from the quality not to mention the sheer size of OBEs. So I donīt think that even this capacity could suffice, especially since Iīm rather doubtful about the FLOPS/neuron value. Also, T&L is not all that needs to be done to create an interactive 3D world. > Not really know, just deduced from the various "no real space or time > in astral world" mentionings on a.oob. May be an wrong inpression I> > got. You know, Iīm not saying this isnīt so - I just donīt know enough about it to either prove or disprove this. > I still have an old dumb framebuffer with nothing more than 2D panning > and fill acceleration (Matrox Millennium I). Still waiting for real 3D > support and drivers in Linux before deciding on an new card. The aforementioned GeForce256 and the soon-coming Savage2000 both have on-board T&L. Hopefully they will release Linux drivers for them (Iīm planning to get a GeForce, and to install Linux on my new IBM 34 gig disk. Currently Iīm running NT, but soon I will be free. ;-) > Oh, and also astronomically interested. (Solar eclipse was an real > wipeout, I got thick cloud in Stuttgart (in totality, about 100km > north of where I live), and the Perseids were also clouds, and they > would have been great at 1000m in the mountains). I saw the eclipse from central Turkey. It was awesome! :-) Now, if only the Leonids would treat us to a real storm now... and the weather cooperates (really it would be worse if there is a storm and you cannot see it because of clouds than if there is none). > Now where do I know that one from? :-) My site has 3 empty directories, > where projects started and got nowhere (opinions, archery, > roleplaying). Too much usenetting... :-) Yes, it requires a lot of oneīs time to be sure. > Damn good artwork for a pixel editor, particularly the shading. Thanks. :-) It is more than 500 hours of work there. Then you also have to consider that they originally were made in only 32 colors, the same 32 for every picture. > > P.S. BTW Neil, do you read UserFriendly? > > Erm, yes, it is on my Netscape startup page. > > Why do you ask? Not really. You just seemed like that kind of guy (UNIX wizard, hacker, geek etc. - or whatever it was your previous sig said) that might appreciate it. I found it some 2 months ago, and was promptly infected by the Productivity Virus. ;-) For others: If youīd like to read a really great online cartoon, try UserFriendly. It is in some ways similar to Dilbert, but IMO better, geekier and full of open source and hacker in-jokes, Star Wars and (currently) Tolkien spoofs, and general hilariousness. If you can stand such, go to: http://www.userfriendly.org See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:00:05 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 34 Message-ID: <381AEBD5.62F23E62@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><3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch><3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <01bf2264$425f9ea0$792267cf@default> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du42-91.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941288307 6504 195.100.91.42 (30 Oct 1999 12:58:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 1999 12:58:27 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!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!f.de.uu.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Jay, Jay wrote: > > You guys seem to have made this whole issue rather complicated. I > would like to try to simplify it a bit. > > Take a keyboard for instance. Close your eyes and imagine what it > looks like. Hit the keys in your imagination. Pick the whole thing up > and turn it over in your mind. Visualize where the cord attaches. Set > it down again and hear the clunk against your imaginary desk. See what > I mean? The mind *can* create complex visualizations, regardless of the > question of *how* it does it. This may only be me, but when I do this, seeing things "in my mindīs eye", the effect is very weak and faint, nowhere near how it is like in a dream, let alone in an OBE. OTOH I have never been that good at visualizing. Then, one might also question exactly what happens when one is visualizing things. Are you really forming and viewing them somewhere else? Thought-forms etc. 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 and elves Date: 30 Oct 1999 20:50:10 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 141 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6ur9icmxvx.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> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381AEBD0.41C9102A@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > assume that each of these pieces would be stored as texture and > > outline shape. With more views the object gets more t/os pairs > > added to it. > > We donīt know if it uses textures or geometry for everything. It is > possible that various "cheats" are employed, however; textures, bump > > This would save a bit on processing power but increase memory > requirements (There is no free lunch). Still, it might work > satisfactorily. I think so, as brain memory seems to be quite large (I have no statistics on actual size, just gut feeling and experience of what I have got stored in there). > > I agree with the need for an 3D model, but not with the actual > > rendering to 2D pixelmap. > > Since the retina generates a "pixelmap" of a kind, donīt you think that > the sight center in the brain somehow is "hardwired" for this kind of > information? The 2D->3D is definitely hardwired (IIRC the part at the back of the brain). OTOH there is equaly definitely no 2D output hardware /take nerve impulses and make light an shine it on the retina). So the question is, where does the input switch from eye/generator happen? My current estimate is at texture/outline shape level. > > and we do have quite a bit of calculating power at hand (ca 10000-30000 > > neurons = 1MFLOPS, > > This would mean one neuron can do 30-100 FLOPS. This sounds awfully > high. Nerves work with variable impulse frequency. Impulses are somewhere in the 1-5ms (so say 3ms) range. That gives an theoretical max of 300Hz. I would assume there to be some bottom frequency under which processing would be too slow to react to the world. I would assume this to be min 10-30Hz. With max 300Hz that makes an avg in the 30-100 Hz range. I have equivalated one calculation step (=Hz) with one FLOP. Actually we have each neuron calculating something like an sum of products from 100..10000 inputs (each range 0-1) with each an constant, strictly that would be 100-10000 fixed point mul+ads, with low accuracy (perhaps equivalent to 6-10bit), per neuron. I decided to take an conservative value. It could be 100-1000 higher. > The speed is limited by the velocity of the electro-chemical connections > (nerve impulses travel no faster than a few 100 m/s) as well as the rate > of the actual "processing". Transmission delay has hardly any effect on neuron-neuron communication in the brain (distances in 10s of cm, so single ms delays). So also no effect on processing power (system throughput). It does affect system response time (say, to someone standing on your foot). > Also, one would imagine that it takes more than one neuron to perform a > FLOP (it certainly takes more than one transistor in microchips). Transistors are binary devices (at least as wired in CMOS digital chips). Neurons are analog computers. They offer the equivalence of many FLOPS of low resolution (= bitlength) per element. Historical point 1: a Philbury (ca mid 1960s) analog computer managed in real time (delay to input change in ms) continous computations of which an same era (and similar price) RoyalMcBee LGP-30 digital computer took 20min per cycle. Historical point 2: a minimal digital computer (G1a, 1955) takes about 100-200 transistory (OK, valves then). A minimal analog computer (sliderule, 1650-1700?) can be implemented in 2 pieces of plastic (Ok, bone then). > > and we about 10000000000 of them, so about 300000-1000000 MFLOPS) of > > which somewhere around 30% seems to be video related. > > If 30% are used for this and the above speed is correct, then you have > 100-300 GFLOPS. As comparison the new advanced consumer-level 3D > graphics card Nvidia GeForce256 with internal T&L boasts some 50 > GFLOPS). Yes, for fixed purpose calculations chips are up to brain levels in raw power. > So I donīt think that > even this capacity could suffice, especially since Iīm rather doubtful > about the FLOPS/neuron value. As said my number was conservative, it may be 100-1000 times larger. So that should suffise if we do not need to render. > gig disk. Currently Iīm running NT, but soon I will be free. ;-) Wellcome to the world of sanity. > Now, if only the Leonids would treat us to a real storm now... November IIRC. What date exactly? > > > P.S. BTW Neil, do you read UserFriendly? > Not really. You just seemed like that kind of guy (UNIX wizard, hacker, > geek etc. - or whatever it was your previous sig said) that might > appreciate it. :-) Resurrected it for this post. > For others: If youīd like to read a really great online cartoon, try > UserFriendly. It is in some ways similar to Dilbert, but IMO better, > geekier and full of open source and hacker in-jokes, Star Wars and > (currently) Tolkien spoofs, and general hilariousness. I second that one. And add: the setting is an small ISP, not Dilberts corporate environment. > http://www.userfriendly.org -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it ###### Message-ID: <381BE8F4.3AE4@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 and elves 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 126 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941353132 207.103.34.8 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:58:52 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:58:52 EST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 02:00:04 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!grolier!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > Janice wrote: > > the kinesthetic layer of dreams seems more primary than the visual layer to > > me, considering how often dreams start out or fade to dark yet I still > > have a sense of moving through space. > > As for myself dreams do not do this, but OBEs often do. While OBE I > often have this thing I call "Proxysense". > > This is a kind of sense where you still perceive your velocity, > orientation, direction and position (compared to other nearby objects). > You also sense the whereabouts and general shape of larger objects > (walls, furniture etc.) while not touching them. The sense seems to > reach out only a short distance, hence the name (some 10 m or > thereabouts). OK, I had been wondering what you meant by "proxysense" but forgot to ask. I have definitely experienced that in the ordinary kind of lucid dreams on occasions when they go black for a while, as well as lucid dreams induced via OBE techniques. It's hard to say how much one is sensing and how much one is creating, though. In one lucid dream that faded to black while I was standing on a street scene, I simply pretended that I was in a walk-in closet in my house then reached out for and picked up objects that I knew would be there. When the visuals returned I was sure enough in that closet in a new dream scene. And in one OBE-type lucid dream I entered a nearby house and created everything I wanted by feel, just by thinking things like "there will be a dresser ten paces ahead, there will be a handle at the center of the top drawer, inside the drawer the right there will be a notepad and pen," etc. Less explicitly directed expectations may similarly help create the objects in other scenes where there are no visuals. > > > In other words, as long as it feels like we are moving through space, > > the visuals will usually respond as if we really were doing so, to keep > > up the 3D illusion. > > > > Anyway, it's just something I'm thinking about. > > Ok. I get it. It's been an interesting (for me anyway) line of thinking lately. We think of dream space as three dimensional because we can move through it, but what if the movement itself is an illusion? Jay and I have both been able to stand still in a dream and concentrate to make the perspective of the scene in front of us change as if we were moving. Jay has made the scene rotate to different viewing angles and I have made it roll backwards and forwards just as it would look if I were flying over it, as well as "teleported" to areas ahead of me just by wishing to do so. > > > The point is that simply acting out familiar motions creates and > > changes objects and whole scenes in dreams. If I pretend I have a > > bicycle in a dream and start pedaling away, I soon start to feel and > > then even see the bicycle. How then could it objectively exist, when I > > created it simply by acting as if it was present? I didn't find it or > > even conjure it > > Perhaps one could say that pretending you had it is conjuring it. > > > (one could argue that conjuring is really summoning it from somewhere > > else in the dream world); I made it from scratch, gradually. > > It could be that, yes. And I just happen to summon a bicycle from Elsewhere every time that is exactly the right proportions for the height off the ground to which I happened to hop, the length of my stride when imagining pedaling, and the span of my arms across the handlebars? And when I hop in the air and pretend to ride a horse until one shows up beneath me, again every time I manage to find one that exactly matches the height I hopped, has its stirrups hanging at exactly the right length for my feet, and so on? It seems far more likely that I create these things myself. > > > So, if the tree objectively exists, where did it go? > > Perhaps it faded back into formless energy once I, or someone else, > stopped concentrating on it. > > Take an electromagnet and put a paper on top of it. Now sprinkle iron > filings there and switch on the magnet. You can clearly see the field > lines, or rather the filings outlining the invisible field lines. Does > this pattern have an objective existence? > > Now switch off the magnet and shake the paper. Where did the pattern go? > See what Iīm trying to get to? My hypothesis is that the Astral matter > in its natural state is invisible and without form. However, minds and > thoughts can mold it into whatever shape, including likenesses of > physical objects. When you stop upholding the "object" it becomes > fragile, however, and may disappear at any disturbance. OK, that is a good analogy, but if the astral is formless then it doesn't have any real 3D properties; we could project those there due to expectation from our experience in this 3D world. And, there would be no need to rob preexisting items from elsewhere on the astral plane when conjuring; we could just create them temporarily ourselves, like I am saying seems to be the case with my bikes and horses. > > There is a whole clan of humanoid elves living in one area in the > > OBE/lucid dream version of my town; at least they sometimes speak of > > themselves as elves and respond when referred to as such. > > Do they look like elves? I mean, pointy ears and big, slanted eyes etc.? I think I've seen pointy ears sometimes, but the eyes look normal. Mostly, they act and talk sort of like elves, doing little magical stunts like the balloon trick I mentioned, casting illusions over their buildings, or appearing and disappearing en masse. > > > I get involved in little adventures with them sometimes, such as spying > > on a stronger and more powerful clan of beings from another area with > > whom they battle sometimes. Athough to be honest I have liked some of > > those guys too. They have a penchant for dressing up in black cloaks > > like Tolkien's Nazgul and riding around on black horses looking > > menacing, but they're really OK for the most part. > > I see. The Elves vs the Black Riders. Sounds kinda archetypal. ;-) Yes, but more fun. ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:51:33 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <381C0315.3948@not-here.net> 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: async134.starlinx.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!skynet.be!209.155.56.21.MISMATCH!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > Do they look like elves? I mean, pointy ears and big, slanted eyes etc.? Thought I'd mention that my very first "OBE", when I was a small child, was one in which some small winged fairies appeared in my room, lifted me up from my bed and whisked me away to their kingdom to stand before their stern, red-haired queen (who looked suspiciously like my first-grade teacher). When I saw an elevator in the "fairy court," I decided I was dreaming, refused to answer any questions and woke myself up. ###### Message-ID: <381C80CA.396CC956@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:47:54 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.163 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 941392693 204.131.176.163 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:58:13 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:58:13 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Janice wrote: > If you were to walk around the tree, examine the other side for a while, > then walk back to the first side again, though, I would bet that details > of its appearance will have changed on the first side, without you > making any effort to do so. Or if you were to face the tree for a > while, turn 180 degrees and look off at a nearby house or something for > a minute, then turn back 180 degrees again, your tree may well have > disappeared. So the brain's 3D environmental simulations, if such they > are, don't have to be all that perfect. Just wanted to throw something in here. I had an OBE once where I walked out of my bedroom and into a large fancy living room that did not at all resemble the living room that is attached to my real bedroom. I walked around it for awhile and examined a few things, noticing a floor plant that was facing a certain way. I was very lucid at the time and it was easy for me to examine things in the room in detail and remember them. I walked back into my bedroom and then walked back into the living room (I don't know why I did this little excursion, just pacing I guess). Everything in the living room was exactly the same as it was the first time except for one *very* curious difference. The floor plant was rotated and was now facing in a new direction. I was astonished by this at the time and wondered what could possibly explain what I had just seen. I still don't have a clue. Ken ###### Message-ID: <381C8B49.23C71FD0@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves 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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:32:41 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.163 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 941395382 204.131.176.163 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:43:02 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:43:02 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > The 3D geometry translations would be well within what nerve cells can > calculate. It is an massively parallelisable algorithm and we do have > quite a bit of calculating power at hand (ca 10000-30000 neurons = 1MFLOPS, > and we about 10000000000 of them, so about 300000-1000000 MFLOPS) of > which somewhere around 30% seems to be video related. > My calculations differ. The average processing speed of a neural interaction is around 3ms or about 300 logic transistions per second. Since the brain is a purely parallel machine and has no central processing unit, we have to assume that each pixal in a dream scene would have it's own CPU to define such things as it's color depth (32 bits), it's locations in space, it's trajectory etc. We now have to figure out just how many brain cells are used for the CPUs for each pixal. If we use an old 486 chip as a model then we can use a figure of around 5M transistors (neurons) per pixal. Since the brain has 10 trillion neurons this leaves room for about 2 million CPUs in the brain. Even a rudimentary dream scene has much more resolution than the typical 1M pixal resolution of a computer screen. If we put the resolution of a dream scene at 100 times that of a computer scene then this would mean that 100M pixals would have to be controlled by 2M CPUs or 50 pixals per CPU. At 300 operations per CPU per second this would leave about 6 operations per pixal per second as being the maximum capacity of the brain. Pretty slow frame rate. And this is only if the entire brain was used to process the dream scene. Ken ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:36:11 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 81 Message-ID: <381C45CB.6E7AD322@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> <3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381AEBD0.41C9102A@algonet.se> <6ur9icmxvx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du9-26.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 941376972 24148 195.100.26.9 (31 Oct 1999 13:36:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Oct 1999 13:36:12 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!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Neil, Neil Franklin wrote: > > Nerves work with variable impulse frequency. Impulses are somewhere in > the 1-5ms (so say 3ms) range. That gives an theoretical max of 300Hz. I > would assume there to be some bottom frequency under which processing > would be too slow to react to the world. I would assume this to be min > 10-30Hz. With max 300Hz that makes an avg in the 30-100 Hz range. I > have equivalated one calculation step (=Hz) with one FLOP. > > Actually we have each neuron calculating something like an sum of > products from 100..10000 inputs (each range 0-1) with each an > constant, strictly that would be 100-10000 fixed point mul+ads, with > low accuracy (perhaps equivalent to 6-10bit), per neuron. > > I decided to take an conservative value. It could be 100-1000 higher. Right. I really do not know enough about this, so Iīll have to take your word for it. ;-) > Transmission delay has hardly any effect on neuron-neuron communication > in the brain (distances in 10s of cm, so single ms delays). So also no > effect on processing power (system throughput). It does affect system > response time (say, to someone standing on your foot). Ok. > Transistors are binary devices (at least as wired in CMOS digital > chips). Neurons are analog computers. They offer the equivalence of > many FLOPS of low resolution (= bitlength) per element. I see. > Historical point 1: a Philbury (ca mid 1960s) analog computer managed > in real time (delay to input change in ms) continous computations of > which an same era (and similar price) RoyalMcBee LGP-30 digital > computer took 20min per cycle. So how does modern analog computers perform (if there be any)? > As said my number was conservative, it may be 100-1000 times larger. So > that should suffice if we do not need to render. I stand corrected. ;-) It seems like the brainīs processing power is greater than I thought, but I somehow doubt that even this meets the requirements (sheer size, detail level etc.) of the OBE environment. So I still think the dream and OBE environments are objective and exists in their own right. BTW Neil, this you say about how the neurons perform calculations, is that accepted fact or just your opinion? (I could be wrong, but I didnīt think science knew how the neurons worked yet.) > Welcome to the world of sanity. Thanks. > November IIRC. What date exactly? The prognosis says November 18th, around 2.00 UT (thus favoring Europe). However, the uncertainty is wide enough for any other part of the world to grab the show - if indeed there is any. > Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic > neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:37:01 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 80 Message-ID: <381C45FD.6D4027C5@algonet.se> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@algonet.se> <381BE8F4.3AE4@not-here.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du9-26.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 941377022 24148 195.100.26.9 (31 Oct 1999 13:37:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Oct 1999 13:37:02 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!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Janice, Janice wrote: > It's hard to say how much one is sensing and how much one is creating, > though. In one lucid dream that faded to black while I was standing on > a street scene, I simply pretended that I was in a walk-in closet in my > house then reached out for and picked up objects that I knew would be > there. When the visuals returned I was sure enough in that closet in a > new dream scene. And in one OBE-type lucid dream I entered a nearby > house and created everything I wanted by feel, just by thinking things > like "there will be a dresser ten paces ahead, there will be a handle > at the center of the top drawer, inside the drawer the right there will > be a notepad and pen," etc. Less explicitly directed expectations may > similarly help create the objects in other scenes where there are no > visuals. For some reason the environment seldom is so responsive to my wishes while I am in an OBE. > It's been an interesting (for me anyway) line of thinking lately. We > think of dream space as three dimensional because we can move through > it, but what if the movement itself is an illusion? Jay and I have > both been able to stand still in a dream and concentrate to make the > perspective of the scene in front of us change as if we were moving. > Jay has made the scene rotate to different viewing angles and I have > made it roll backwards and forwards just as it would look if I were > flying over it, as well as "teleported" to areas ahead of me just by > wishing to do so. Interesting thought. > And I just happen to summon a bicycle from Elsewhere every time that is > exactly the right proportions for the height off the ground to which I > happened to hop, the length of my stride when imagining pedaling, and > the span of my arms across the handlebars? And when I hop in the air > and pretend to ride a horse until one shows up beneath me, again every > time I manage to find one that exactly matches the height I hopped, has > its stirrups hanging at exactly the right length for my feet, and so > on? It seems far more likely that I create these things myself. It is quite possible that you do, in a sense (compare the electromagnet analogy). Yet the filings have their own independent existence as well. > OK, that is a good analogy, but if the astral is formless then it > doesn't have any real 3D properties; we could project those there due > to expectation from our experience in this 3D world. Yes. > And, there would be no need to rob preexisting items from elsewhere on > the astral plane when conjuring; we could just create them temporarily > ourselves, like I am saying seems to be the case with my bikes and > horses. Correct. A little similar to software (when you copy something the original does not disappear, nor is it degraded). > I think I've seen pointy ears sometimes, but the eyes look normal. > Mostly, they act and talk sort of like elves, doing little magical > stunts like the balloon trick I mentioned, casting illusions over their > buildings, or appearing and disappearing en masse. This seems awfully like what I do (the appearing and disappearing stuff). It must really be weird for the denizens of the Astral plane watching OBEers appearing and disappearing all the time... ;-) Once I spoke to some people there who couldnīt believe that was possible, until I showed īem by returning to the physbod. See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: "Jay" Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: 31 Oct 1999 17:01:12 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <01bf23c1$b3fc9b40$8f2267cf@default> 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><3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch><381AEBD0.41C9102A@algonet.se> <6ur9icmxvx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381C45CB.6E7AD322@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: async143.starlinx.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!rockie.attcanada.net!newsfeed.attcanada.net!209.155.56.21!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > So I still think the dream and OBE environments are objective and exists > in their own right. Think of it another way: how does the real world get into our heads at all? The eyes are not windows directly into the brain. The brain *must* recreate images of the real world to perceive that world at all, which means the real world is probably a great deal *more* detailed than we can perceive. The world we do see is what we have the potential to see because of our evolutionary history, and what we have learned to see because of our cultural and personal history. We would not see it as we do if this were not the case. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: 31 Oct 1999 23:21:41 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 99 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uso2ruq6i.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> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381C8B49.23C71FD0@privatei.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 The Original Ken writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > The 3D geometry translations would be well within what nerve cells can > > calculate. It is an massively parallelisable algorithm and we do have > > quite a bit of calculating power at hand (ca 10000-30000 neurons = 1MFLOPS, > > and we about 10000000000 of them, so about 300000-1000000 MFLOPS) of > > which somewhere around 30% seems to be video related. [reformated, as format got completely broken] > My calculations differ. The average processing speed of a neural > interaction is around 3ms or about 300 logic transistions per > second. Since the brain is a purely parallel machine and has no > central processing unit, Up to here I am in agreement. Thanks for confirming my estimate (3ms/300Hz). > we have to assume that each pixal in a dream scene Here the first problem I see: there is no reason for the dreaming to go down to pixel level. As said in my discussion with Gunnar, it is most likely enough to go down to geometry/texture level and then insert into the standard vision circuits. The final 3D->2D step is exactly trhe part he and I agree, that it is beyond the computational abilities of the brain. The differences are on whether this is a unaviodable step (and so making it impossible). I doubt so. > would have it's own CPU to define such things as it's color depth > (32 bits), it's locations in space, it's trajectory etc. We now > have to figure out just how many brain cells are used for the CPUs > for each pixal. Exacly, but actually for each geometry point and each surface, not each pixel. That reduces the amount of work significantly. And gets image quality entirely out of the calculations. > If we use an old 486 chip as a model then we can use a figure of > around 5M transistors (neurons) per pixal. Intel 80486DX and DX/2 CPUs are 1.08 mio transistors, to be precise. Exeption: the DX/4 are slightly more because of the doubled size caches. The Pentium I were 5.3 mio transistors. Just to get the historical data right, not important for this discussion. > Since the brain has 10 trillion neurons this leaves room for Is that 10 trillion (10 * 10^12) right? I have been using US-billion (10 * 10^9) for my calculations. That would even make my numbers another factor 1000 better. > about 2 million CPUs in the brain. Ah. Here the problem: equaling transistors and neurons. Transistors (as used on digital chips) are binary devises. It taks about 30 just to add an single bit, about 1000 for an 32bit integer adder. Neurons can in a single one already build an sum of products of all its inputs (typically 100-10000 for brain neurons), so long low precision (equivalent to 6-10 bit) is accepted. > Even a rudimentary dream scene has much more > resolution than the typical 1M pixal resolution of a computer screen. As I said: I doubt that we need to actually render pixels. Simply providing the geometry and texture data should suffice to generate arbitrary scenes from memorised data. So it is more an scene-complexity problem. And I think that one is well in reach (more gut feeling than actual calculation). > the maximum capacity of the brain. Pretty slow frame rate. Actually I do not think that dreams work on an framerate any way. Rather on "scene editing", where objects are added, moved, deleted. After all, I suspect the normal seeing process actually derives and then uses such information from the visible world. Historical note 1: the first successfull robotic object catcher (by L.P.Deutsch) used exactly such an system called "image subtraction". Historical note 2: the first computerised air defenses system (forrunner of today aviation air control) used an "range detector" to notice new aircraft entering the operating theatre (according to an programmer using the same computer for other research). -- 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 and elves Date: 31 Oct 1999 23:35:18 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 53 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6ur9ibupjt.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> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381AEBD0.41C9102A@algonet.se> <6ur9icmxvx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381C45CB.6E7AD322@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Historical point 1: a Philbury (ca mid 1960s) analog computer managed > > in real time (delay to input change in ms) continous computations of > > which an same era (and similar price) RoyalMcBee LGP-30 digital > > computer took 20min per cycle. > > So how does modern analog computers perform (if there be any)? There are none any more. They vanished from the market 1970 +/- 5 years. Their Main problem was the lack of flexibility and large cost (you needed 1 circuit for each operation in the entire peogram, and you needed to program them by wiring the circuits). Parts and labour expense vs digitals getting ever faster. Actually on alt.folklore.computers (informal computer history) there was an post about 1/2 year ago about an modern analog computer with digitally controlled reconfiguration. But it may have been only an project proposal. > It seems like the brainīs processing power is greater than I thought, It is an awfull lot. IMHO it will be technically possible to duplicate brain hardware power in about 10-15 years. But the software development problem will make human level robots such as C3P0 impossible for 50-100 years. > So I still think the dream and OBE environments are objective and exists > in their own right. Of course. I was not attacking this interpretation, which I regard more fitting, the longer I think of it. Rather I was objecting to using brain rendering as an K.O. criterium for the purely physical/LD interpretation. IMHO the problem is still undecided. > BTW Neil, this you say about how the neurons perform calculations, is > that accepted fact or just your opinion? (I could be wrong, but I didnīt > think science knew how the neurons worked yet.) It is one of the current working hypothesis. The one I regard as the most likely. The entire "neural network" style* AI is based on this one. * as oposed to the semantic net and AL style AIs. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Message-ID: <381D2E34.C47@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 and elves References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@algonet.se> <381BE8F4.3AE4@not-here.net> <381C45FD.6D4027C5@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 941436398 207.103.34.8 (Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:06:38 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:06:38 EST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:07:48 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!grolier!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > For some reason the environment seldom is so responsive to my wishes > while I am in an OBE. You need to work on that. Maybe things will change now that you know it is possible (sort of like the way some people have a lucid dream as soon as they hear it is possible). > > We think of dream space as three dimensional because we can move through > > it, but what if the movement itself is an illusion? > > Interesting thought. Even the bodies we use to move through dream space are not strictly necessary. I have had many lucid dreams in which I am a disembodied observer, but I can concentrate to change the camera angle, zoom in and out, and so forth. Jay has gone so far as to remove his own head and throw it away in a lucid dream, and he still saw the scene from his original point of view, not the new position of his dream eyes. > It is quite possible that you do, in a sense (compare the electromagnet > analogy). Yet the filings have their own independent existence as well. The iron filings collapse into a pile of filings when the magnetic field is turned off, but dream objects don't collapse into a pile of astral debris when the "attention field" is turned off; they just vanish. So it's a *little* different. I still can't really see "dreamstuff" as a kind of matter. > It must really be weird for the denizens of the Astral plane watching > OBEers appearing and disappearing all the time... ;-) Once I spoke to > some people there who couldnīt believe that was possible, until I showed > īem by returning to the physbod. I can remember the characters in my lucid soap opera being a little disconcerted by my appearing and disappearing all the time. It's just as well that we have that inherent limitation, or our powers would be overwhelming to poor dream folk. ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:05:32 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 32 Message-ID: <381DC85C.8ECCBF1C@algonet.se> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com><380A6B91.5BDB@not-here.net> <380A753D.BEA9D7D3@Home.com><380AAB35.18E7B29B@mcn.org> <380AC0D0.6CB2@not-here.net><380AC4BE.491F09E3@mcn.org> <380CB350.17DEC381@algonet.se><380CC409.9BD@not-here.net> <380DFEBE.3593572B@algonet.se><380E260D.2DE7@not-here.net> <380F5E7A.B1A447@algonet.se><380F9EAE.7EC5@not-here.net> <3810B66F.53E1DAA5@algonet.se><3810E901.1C40@not-here.net> <3811E6F2.AA18DD20@algonet.se><3811F6A5.58A2@not-here.net> <38123EE6.AC203FB9@Home.com><38134AD9.1FC979D2@algonet.se> <6uvh7t3o7x.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch><3817461F.5EA1DF06@algonet.se> <6uzox4h6u3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch><3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <6ubt9h3l0c.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch><381AEBD0.41C9102A@algonet.se> <6ur9icmxvx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <381C45CB.6E7AD322@algonet.se> <01bf23c1$b3fc9b40$8f2267cf@default> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du120-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941475931 4093 195.100.93.120 (1 Nov 1999 17:05:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Nov 1999 17:05:31 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!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.online.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Jay, Jay wrote: > > Think of it another way: how does the real world get into our heads at > all? The eyes are not windows directly into the brain. The brain > *must* recreate images of the real world to perceive that world at all, Well, *process* them is probably more like it. > which means the real world is probably a great deal *more* detailed > than we can perceive. Possibly. > The world we do see is what we have the potential to see because of our > evolutionary history, and what we have learned to see because of our > cultural and personal history. We would not see it as we do if this > were not the case. There may indeed be something to this. See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ---------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid,alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dream computations and elves Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:12:42 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 34 Message-ID: <381DCA0A.8F624247@algonet.se> References: <8mtO3.13510$0G2.502195@typ12.nn.bcandid.com> <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> <3818A9E0.43DF5C03@algonet.se> <381940F5.DDE@not-here.net> <3819DD08.77AD3F74@algonet.se> <381A947C.7D0A@not-here.net> <381AEBCA.F34D38C7@algonet.se> <381BE8F4.3AE4@not-here.net> <381C45FD.6D4027C5@algonet.se> <381D2E34.C47@not-here.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du120-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 941476362 5428 195.100.93.120 (1 Nov 1999 17:12:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Nov 1999 17:12:42 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!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Hi Janice, Janice wrote: > > You need to work on that. Maybe things will change now that you know > it is possible (sort of like the way some people have a lucid dream as > soon as they hear it is possible). Yes, possibly. > The iron filings collapse into a pile of filings when the magnetic > field is turned off, but dream objects don't collapse into a pile of > astral debris when the "attention field" is turned off; they just > vanish. So it's a *little* different. Certainly. I never claimed it was a *perfect* analogy. > I can remember the characters in my lucid soap opera being a little > disconcerted by my appearing and disappearing all the time. It's just > as well that we have that inherent limitation, or our powers would be > overwhelming to poor dream folk. Quite. ;-) See you out there... /Gunnar ---------------------------------------- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity ----------------------------------------