Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
1. The perception ones never make sense to me.
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 02:55 PM
Jun 2013

The crux of them is that, if nobody experiences something, it ceases to exist. While it might not exist in our perception, it still does exist. The same is true about the "tree falling in the woods" problem - it still happened - perception is just confused for absolute reality. This is fairly egocentric, imo.

A good comparison would be with video games. Even if you aren't "looking" at something in-game, such as two 'mobs' duking it out, it's still happening in memory (HP is draining, their XYZ locations are moving, a pseudo fight is occuring). Rendering uses memory to present a picture to you. Items are rendered based on their location on the plane (much like how our brain interprets a 3D field of elements). You might completely miss an event occuring right behind you, but memory was processing it the entire time.

Video games are also a terrible example because processing is done around the player experience (eg mobs beyond delta X (distance between mob and player) = 500 (meters) may stop fighting and freeze in time to save computer resources).

Does this make any sense in the least bit? I tend to ramble, and nerdy things like computer science are my passion.




Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Philosophy»10 mind-blowing theories ...»Reply #1