“We’re dealing with the smallest sorts of things we can perceive, we don’t possess the instruments capable of distinguishing them, yet, but I suspect we will some day.”
What does it mean to “see” something for example, either with your own eyes or through a camera? It means to bounce a photon off an object and capture it via reflection. Well quantum particles are so small and fragile that the photon actually fucks them up, and distorts or destroys them. So we can’t measure them for that reason. There is nothing magical or spooky about it.
I don’t have Synaesthesia, but I recently saw purple haze drifting around in front of me a few times in an almost galaxy-like fashion, and ultra-violet is another colour I often see hovering over and behind objects… but I think these phenomenon are caused by brain chemistry and neural over-activity… and yes, it is very pretty indeed.
I’m a drug-free zone, and avoid all toxins at all costs… for health reasons, so it seems to be a naturally-induced phenomenon, probably triggered by endorphins, which are the body’s natural opioid.
Yeah ok, but what triggers the endorphins? And I mean, endorphins are a pretty large proportion of brain chemicals, by themselves I don’t think constitute any kind of answer.
Yeah, 90% imagination. But the imagination still has to be fed by concrete and careful scientific methodology.
What is being discussed is what methods may glean some information about those dynamics, and their limitations. It is an outright lie to say you are “seeing” anything, just by virtue of how difficult it is to measure anything at that scale.
So they say things like “a thing causes another thing far away before travel is possible.” But meanwhile they sneak by that we have already identified a discreet thing, and that its measurement is concrete enough to determine causality.
As if we were talking about atomic dynamics or something. If even a photon can throw the thing off, clearly we need to step back and ask “what even is a quanta?” It is certainly not a “thing” in any way such as an atom or an electron are a thing. Or even like gravity and the force that holds nuclei together. Those things can actually be discreetly identified and measured, because tools can be used on them that don’t dramatically alter its dynamics in any way we cannot account for in equally concrete and discreet measurements.
QP is largely the refusal to admit that those things are really fucking hard to measure.
Einstein had a concrete enough grasp on what elements he was working with to deploy his imagination on it. Extensive work had been done on electricity and atomic dynamics before he could come up with his theories.
In the case of sub-electronic dynamics, we are extremely far from having good enough methods of measurement or understanding of what we are measuring to apply any nearly comparable level of imagination to.
They have done some nifty things. You could probably make a small computer with their computations so far that could crash most supercomputers at once in a short second. But they have not done what they say they have done.
Worst part is, they say they have done it largely to justify their mystic sense of fundamental universal uncertainty. They say they have done it, just so they can say the universe is broken.
Fuck your agenda. Give me a sub-electronic reactor.
Another interesting thing to say about both Einstein and Newton is that both came up with imagination, with theories that explain only dynamics, based on an understanding of what you might call particles.
QP and string theory do the opposite. They use imagination to conjure particles, based on observed dynamics.
In this sense, you could say Newton and Einstein are not atomists, in the Democritan sense. To them, particles are just an excuse, a stable arrangement to measure dynamics.
So QPicists and string theorists are atomists. To them, dynamics are just an excuse, a stable arrangement to measure particles.
The importance on one hand is fundamentally based on utility, on the other on security.
Yes, there is a myth - I am not saying it is held by PIR, just hopping into the conversation here - that intuition is over here and scientific analysis and rationaliy is over there. The latter is better and in no way dependent or connected to the former. Nope. Scientists must use intuition, not on in coming up with better hypotheses and lines research, but every step in their process includes intuitive processes - have I looked at my protocols enough to rule out other factors, have I chosen my sample free of prejudice, are my terms (sematically) appropriate to the research, have I double checked enough, do I have a nagging feeling I have an unchecked assumption here and so on. IOW yes, they come up with ideas and potential models and lines of research and hypotheses with imaginatino (read: intuition) but even when they get down to the brass tacks of scientific procedure, protocol construction, testing, evaluation of results, presentation of results, intuition undergirds all sorts of decision making processes. Without inuition nearly every rational process is damagingly if not catastrophically autistic.
Um? I don’t know, but I do do all these things, most days.
Being in a state of bliss may be the answer, as, much of that rings true for me… I’m very calm and chill, but we all have our moments, right? ; )
Many get their feel-goods from being aggy, but I think that that is counter-productive to bliss satiation, as antagonism is anti-bliss and would therefore inhibit endorphin production. Aggy types literally steal your high from you, by antagonistic means, and are known as toxic types… my eldest sister is so, so I have to keep her on a strict level of rapport.
Well… I’m no expert, but this Smithsonian Magazine article says “Young synesthetes losing their colors over time would fit with a popular theory about synesthesia, which says that it comes from an overly connected brain. “All very young children have hyper-connected brains,” Simner says; the neurons branch out indiscriminately between different areas. As we grow, the unneeded connections are pruned away, a process that continues throughout childhood. “It may be that synesthetes escape the pruning, so to speak,” Simner says. All kids might start out with some degree of synesthesia, which fades away with normal development”.
Wendy… perhaps you are a child of god, as opposed to a child, and so remain neurally-unpruned and therefore remain neurally-connected, like bae bae.
Lol come on Mags, I am neither talking about nor attempting to allude to taking drugs or drug-like experiences, even a little.
'Saying is simpler here. What can cause such a thing as you described experiencing? “I don’t care” is an answer that certainly makes sense to me, and that I reserve for many of my own most treasured experiences, but “endorphins” seems like neither one nor the other, neither “I don’t care” nor “well this.”
I think it might be a little rude to accuse our friend of disingenuousness or superstition right off the bat, and I am just trying to ask a question that puts into perspective the fact that a thing like synesthesia is not as simple as “because!”
I cannot speak for the guy, but only myself, and what I’ve discussed with others who have had similar experiences… it’s an interesting phenomenon, regardless.
Can’t say I’ve ever had it, even after doing copious amounts of acid, but I find it extremely interesting and it makes some kind of weird sense to me. And yet, what does cause it? I think, whether one has any interest in answering it or not, that it is a good question.