Can we imagine something new which is completely different ?

Rosnet:

I believe they have dreams, but not ones where they can see. That is to say, they dream as they live - in sound, touch, and smell.
 
Have you asked anyone about it? I would like to know more about this. Guess I'll do web search too. I was thinking. If, like instinct, they inherit some memories also, would it be possible to awaken them so that they can imagine sight?
 
Rosnet:

Well, the notion of genetic memory, at present, is very controversial. That is to say, few people are willing to go out on the limb and say it is real. But if indeed there are memories which are capable of being experiencd as our own from the past, and these memories are visual in nature, then yes, it is possible that awakening such could give a blind person the ability to imagine sight. It is also possible, however, that such ancestral memories would be interpreted differently, and instead carry an aural or tactile aspect where the sight would be.

But no, I have never asked someone who was blind from birth as to whether they see or not, although I have read it declared that they cannot. But that actually makes me want to call up the blind care centre and see if they could provide me with that information.

In fact, should they be open this morning, I shall give them a ring and see if they might do just that.
 
Rosnet:

Extremely intriguing! Thank you for the links.

But no, I never asked anyone about their dreams. I should have to find someone who was blind since a child to do so.
 
Yes people born blind have dreams, but it's the same as their lives, they don't visualize anything. You can have expeiences without a vision of them, otherwise blind people wouldn't exist. They have experiences intheir dreams, just like in real life.
 
Absane said:
Yes. You can view a 4D hypercube in 3D two ways: Time or spatial "reflection." With time, you would see a 3D cube expanded with time. Spatial, you would see basically a cube within a cube, but this is because every vertex must have 4 corners. And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.

Visualization is fun :cool:
Click to expand...

__________________________________________________________

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,

415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

14 May 1976


"An Accelerating Universe?"

"...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.


'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).

'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

Very Truly Yours,


David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

(Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)

__________________________________________________

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: What is the meaning of Mr. Bucky Fuller's statement, here?

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...


"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics. We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17
 
Absane said:
And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.
Click to expand...
You cannot see an entire 3D object at one time?
 
SHUT UP Kaiduorkhon!!! You're not getting the point. And no, TruthSeeker, you cannot see an entire 3D object at the same time. You cannot see the back, you cannot see inside... If you were looking at a 2D figure (from our three dimensions) you would be able to see it entirely, even "inside" a closed figure.

But this is all beside the point. So please stop bringing this up OKAY?
 
Kaiduorkhon:

If the a mathematical point is a sphere, then it is not the first - or zeroth - dimension. A sphere is a three dimensional object.
 
Rosnet said:
And no, TruthSeeker, you cannot see an entire 3D object at the same time. You cannot see the back, you cannot see inside...
Click to expand...
Huuumm... I see.

If you were looking at a 2D figure (from our three dimensions) you would be able to see it entirely, even "inside" a closed figure.
Click to expand...
So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?
 
In keeping with Einstein, I keep being ordered to SHUT UP! Why not direct your surley impatience at the spirit and work of Einstein - he's the one who persuaded the entire world that the entire universe including the world and everything and person on it is four dimensional. It is ostensibly a conditional physical standard that is familiar to everyone, but remains unrecognized.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
 
I know all that man... I have nothing against it. Only, THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. So take it elsewhere!
 
Namely here:

<A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">Hyperspace</A>
 
TruthSeeker said:
So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?
Click to expand...
I think we'd be able to see the inside also, is that right?
 
Go here man: <A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">Hyperspace</A>.
 
Prince_James said:
Kaiduorkhon:

If the a mathematical point is a sphere, then it is not the first - or zeroth - dimension. A sphere is a three dimensional object.
Click to expand...

I think that what Buckminster Fuller was qualifying is that, although a geometric point doesn't exist, it is to be mathematically considered as round in shape. He seems to be clarifying that the 'hypercube' finds its geometric origins in a mathematically considered, square shaped geometric point, which he appears to be taking issue with.

Incidentally, all of a glass sphere can and is being seen - observed - in three and four dimensions.
 
TruthSeeker said:
You cannot see an entire 3D object at one time?
Click to expand...

Try looking at a solid cube in it's whole with your eyes. You are limited to seeing AT MOST 3 sides.

In 2D, these "beings" can see at MOST 2 sides.

In 1D, these "beings" can see at MOST 1 side.

Without proof, a 4D being can see at MOST 4 sides of a 4D cube. However, each side is a 3D cube.

Just like in 3D, each side is a 2D plane.

In 2D, each side is a 1D line.

In 1D, each side is a 0D point.

And in each dimension, they can see the entire side (if you talk about not seeing the backside of the object, then you are introducing width. We are only talking about "thicknessless" objects).
 
TruthSeeker said:
So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?
Click to expand...

Yes. Just imagine looking at a solid 3D cube in it's whole without having to rotate it.

That's what the side of a 4D cube looks like.

If you want to get a sense of this, play this game: http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

It's the 4D version of the 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube. In this case, it's the 3x3x3x3 cube.

It's quite fun. I was actually able to convert my method of solving a 3D Rubik's cube into solving the 4D version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top