--------------070100060001070803050706
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
No. Every once in a while people will claim that some other brilliant
person has the ability, but I believe they're wrong, and the reason for
that is that we've evolved specifically to live in 3 dimensions and it's
very hard-coded in our brains. I recently saw a video in which the
speaker claimed that we can't even visualize in 1 or 2 dimensions
because when we try, we really end up simply embedding lines and planes
in a mental 3D space. We do have the ability to think abstractly and can
therefore deal with any number of dimensions and even fractional
dimensions, but when it comes to visualizing, them, I've concluded that
we're hopelessly stuck.
On 11/22/2015 6:35 PM, llamaonacid@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
>
> Is the human brain capable of actually visualizing hyperobjects and
> has anyone here been capable of doing so?
--------------070100060001070803050706
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is the human brain capable of actually visualizing hyperobjects
and has anyone here been capable of doing so?
--------------080805080900010202010103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't find slicing things to be a very helpful way of understanding
them. Projections seem much more useful in that regard. MC4D will give
you that tiny glimpse that you want, but don't expect much more than
that. Computers have no trouble dealing with any number of dimensions
but I wouldn't say that they visualize anything either. Sure, we might
and probably should design our successors to be better than ourselves in
as many ways as possible. I'm just saying that I don't see us ever
developing the ability, even in our transhumanist future.
On 11/22/2015 8:04 PM, llamaonacid@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
>
> Oh. Perhaps you are correct but I think that in a post-human era, AI
> will be able to live in environments with higher dimensions.
>
> Right now, though, an individual could visualize a Rubik's Cube as
> five 2D slices and somehow put them together in their mind. I am
> thinking that if I somehow can visualize five 3D slices of a 4D
> Rubik's Cube and put them together I would be able to visualize 4D at
> least a tiny glimpse.
--------------080805080900010202010103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh. Perhaps you are correct but I think that in a post-human era,
AI will be able to live in environments with higher dimensions.
Right now, though, an individual could visualize a Rubik's Cube as
five 2D slices and somehow put them together in their mind. I am
thinking that if I somehow can visualize five 3D slices of a 4D
Rubik's Cube and put them together I would be able to visualize 4D
at least a tiny glimpse. =C2=A0
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01D125D0.C3410AA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I perfectly agree with Melinda!
Very succinct considerations!
"we've evolved specifically to live in 3 dimensions and=20
it's very hard-coded in our brains"
Best regards
Ed
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Melinda Green melinda@superliminal.com [4D_Cubing]=20
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Visualizing Hyperobjects
=20=20=20=20
I don't find slicing things to be a very helpful way of understanding the=
m. Projections seem much more useful in that regard. MC4D will give you tha=
t tiny glimpse that you want, but don't expect much more than that. Compute=
rs have no trouble dealing with any number of dimensions but I wouldn't say=
that they visualize anything either. Sure, we might and probably should de=
sign our successors to be better than ourselves in as many ways as possible=
. I'm just saying that I don't see us ever developing the ability, even in =
our transhumanist future.
On 11/22/2015 8:04 PM, llamaonacid@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
Oh. Perhaps you are correct but I think that in a post-human era, AI wi=
ll be able to live in environments with higher dimensions.
Right now, though, an individual could visualize a Rubik's Cube as five=
2D slices and somehow put them together in their mind. I am thinking that =
if I somehow can visualize five 3D slices of a 4D Rubik's Cube and put them=
together I would be able to visualize 4D at least a tiny glimpse.=20=20=20
=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01D125D0.C3410AA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF
I don't find slicing things to be a very helpful way of understanding =
them.=20
Projections seem much more useful in that regard. MC4D will give you that=
tiny=20
glimpse that you want, but don't expect much more than that. Computers ha=
ve no=20
trouble dealing with any number of dimensions but I wouldn't say that the=
y=20
visualize anything either. Sure, we might and probably should design our=
=20
successors to be better than ourselves in as many ways as possible. I'm j=
ust=20
saying that I don't see us ever developing the ability, even in our=20
transhumanist future.
Oh. Pe=
rhaps=20
you are correct but I think that in a post-human era, AI will be able t=
o=20
live in environments with higher dimensions.
Right now, though, =
an=20
individual could visualize a Rubik's Cube as five 2D slices and somehow=
put=20
them together in their mind. I am thinking that if I somehow can visual=
ize=20
five 3D slices of a 4D Rubik's Cube and put them together I would be ab=
le to=20
visualize 4D at least a tiny glimpse.
--------------030305010100080906000500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Chris,
I'm glad that you decided to join the discussion!
The closest I've come to truly perceiving something in 4D comes from the=20
4D shift-dragging rotation in MC4D. We get so used to seeing these=20
projections into 3D that it's easy to forget about their 4D nature. We=20
all know that that the puzzle consists of eight 3D faces but we forget=20
that they bound a rectilinear region of 4-space. It's analogous to how=20
solvers of the 3D twisty puzzles are very aware of the patterns of the=20
stickers on the outside of their favorite objects and are only=20
occasionally aware of its volume and the mechanism inside it. Looked at=20
this way, the Rubik's cube is really a 2D puzzle, and MC4D is really=20
only 3D. That gives us plenty of opportunity to perceive the true nature=20
of this puzzle, but not of the object itself. The 3D "skin" of this=20
object completely fills my 3D mind, but where is the 4D volume that it=20
bounds? When I'm shift-dragging in MC4D I sometimes get glimpses into of=20
a kind of finite cubic hollowness, but it quickly vanishes. The good=20
thing is that the experience is repeatable.
The only other thing I want to say is that visualization has little to=20
do with vision. I'm glad that you pointed out how motion parallax allows=20
stereo vision with only a single eye. One eye should be enough to "see"=20
in any number of dimensions, but notice that you can still visualize=20
just fine without any eyes. If you close your eyes and think about a=20
model car, you can perceive it from any angle just by thinking about it.=20
Actually, that's a trick that does take some effort, and some people are=20
not very good at it, I think because it specifically involves vision.=20
It's the mental equivalent of projecting a 3D object into a 2D picture.=20
The result is that you can only look at one projection at a time. Not=20
exactly the "all directions at once" you are hoping for.
But consider this. Imagine holding that model car in your hands with=20
your eyes closed. You can now be completely aware of all of its features=20
at the same time! Even people who were blind from birth are quite able=20
to visualize in 3D. It's as if we all have a kind of stage inside our=20
minds that we can fill with an awareness of whatever we like, including=20
ourselves. Especially including ourselves. That's how we measure and=20
judge the distance and speed and potential danger of cars and tigers and=20
such in our environment. It's crucial for most species to have this sort=20
of awareness, and that's why it evolved.
As llamaonacid said (what is your name please?), AI can be programmed to=20
do similar things in any number of dimensions. It's helpful to realize=20
that computers and software also evolve. Their evolution is not driven=20
by natural selection, but market forces still drive a very real form of=20
evolution. In all cases, evolution is a form of optimization towards=20
various goals where only the fittest survive. Evolution requires goals.=20
We evolved over billions of years to survive in a 3D world, so that's=20
not just what we're good at, it's also a large part of what we are.=20
Computers are evolving against some very different goals. One of the=20
biggest uses of computer power today is in the linear programming field=20
of resource allocation. These systems naturally deal with objects=20
involving millions of dimensions, and have gotten very good at it. I can=20
imagine a future in which they become self-aware, but I can't imagine=20
how I could ever become like them, or how they could become like me,=20
because we are simply evolved for different things. I can on the other=20
hand imagine something about the lives of future robots and self-driving=20
cars, because they are evolving to function in some of the same=20
environments in which we evolved. Notice also how it would be next to=20
impossible to teach a linear programming computer to drive a car, or for=20
a self-driving car to crunch linear programming problems. It would be=20
analogous to trying to pull an umbrella through a chain-link fence. With=20
enough enough effort, you might actually manage it, but you probably=20
wouldn't even call it an umbrella at that point.
-Melinda
On 11/23/2015 5:13 AM, Chris cpw@maine.rr.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
>
> The closest thing I ever had to a religious experience was when I=20
> visualized a hypersphere, at least as much as I'm capable of=20
> visualizing anything. Haven't been able to duplicate the experience.
>
> So, on the one hand, that's still a "no" because my ability to=20
> visualize is kind of . . . not there. I've never found the words to=20
> describe what it /is/ like. It's /almost/ seeing, but not quite=20
> there. On the other hand, to the extent that I can "see" anything in=20
> my mind's eye, I did see it that one time. On Zaphoid Beeblebrox's=20
> third hand, an n-dimensional sphere is always going to be the easiest=20
> thing to visualize. It looks the same from every angle so if it isn't=20
> textured or colored, there's no complexity; looking at a sphere is=20
> always shows you a circle, looking at a circle if you're in a 2D=20
> environment always shows you a line of the same length. Shading is=20
> probably different though, otherwise how do you know from a single=20
> angle that it's really an n-sphere not an [n minus 1] sphere? (E.g.=20
> how do you know it's a sphere not a circular disk?)
>
> Combine the simplicity of a hypersphere with the fact that nothing I=20
> "visualize" actually quite reaches the level of real visualization=20
> (I'm in envy of those who can truly visualize) and we're back to=20
> Melinda's answer of, "No." (Plus it only happened once.)
>
> It is a bit more complex than simply that we're coded for 3D, though. =
=20
> We are, but what that means is more complicated than it initially=20
> sounds. We don't see in three dimensions. We see in two dimensions,=20
> twice, from slightly different angles, and use the differences to=20
> determine three dimensional structure. These days you can do the same=20
> thing with two pictures from different positions and a computer=20
> program, it's called "structure from motion" (the "motion" being=20
> moving the camera from angle one to angle two, and then probably other=20
> angles as well because why stop at two?)
>
> If you close one eye (or only have the one, or don't have two=20
> working-together normally), though, even though what you're seeing is=20
> a single two dimensional image, you're still seeing three dimensional=20
> objects, and any movement allows the same kind of=20
> difference-to-structure as having the two standard offset eyes open=20
> (though our brains aren't nearly as adept at that compared to just=20
> having two eyes open and working in concert.)
>
> Applying the same principles to four dimensional objects, an eye=20
> evolved for a 4D would return a three dimensional "image" and you'd=20
> use two such 3D viewing eyes, offset of course, to get the 4D=20
> structure. But, as with our 2D viewing eyes, closing one of them=20
> wouldn't mean you're not looking at 4D objects anymore.
>
> So to really visualize in 4D what is needed is to be able to visualize=20
> a 3D space /as seen from every possible angle at once/. As far as I=20
> know, no one can do that. Might be why my pseudo-religious=20
> mathematical experience was a hypersphere, every possible angle of a=20
> sphere returns "looks like a circle from this angle too." But, even=20
> with something that simple, I only ever did it once. And that's not=20
> because of a lack of trying, I simply can't duplicate the experience.
>
> But if you could, somehow, do that (see 3D from every possible angle),=20
> then it would be the same as 4D viewing without depth perception.
>
> Seeing in 4D requires seeing in true 3D, and human beings can't=20
> actually do that. We compare two two dimensional images in a brain=20
> designed to gather depth information from the differences between them=20
> and see in a sort of 2.5-D. We're not /just/ hard-coded for a 3D=20
> world, we're hard-coded for viewing that world from a single position=20
> (with the only wiggle room being the distance from one eye to the=20
> other, said wiggle room being used to determine depth.)
>
> - Chris Witham, who has been meaning to say, "Hello," for /years/.
> (chris the cynic)
>
> ps Hi everyone.
>
> On 11/22/2015 9:35 PM, llamaonacid@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>>
>> Is the human brain capable of actually visualizing hyperobjects and=20
>> has anyone here been capable of doing so?
>>
>
>
>=20
--------------030305010100080906000500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
pe">
The closest thing I ever had
to a religious experience was when I visualized a hypersphere, at
least as much as I'm capable of visualizing anything.=C2=A0 Haven't
been able to duplicate the experience.
So, on the one hand, that's still a "no" because my ability to
visualize is kind of . . . not there.=C2=A0 I've never found the word=
s
to describe what it is like.=C2=A0 It's almost seeing,
but not quite there.=C2=A0 On the other hand, to the extent that I ca=
n
"see" anything in my mind's eye, I did see it that one time.=C2=A0 On
Zaphoid Beeblebrox's third hand, an n-dimensional sphere is always
going to be the easiest thing to visualize.=C2=A0 It looks the same
from every angle so if it isn't textured or colored, there's no
complexity; looking at a sphere is always shows you a circle,
looking at a circle if you're in a 2D environment always shows you
a line of the same length.=C2=A0 Shading is probably different though=
,
otherwise how do you know from a single angle that it's really an
n-sphere not an [n minus 1] sphere?=C2=A0 (E.g. how do you know it's =
a
sphere not a circular disk?)
Combine the simplicity of a hypersphere with the fact that nothing
I "visualize" actually quite reaches the level of real
visualization (I'm in envy of those who can truly visualize) and
we're back to Melinda's answer of, "No."=C2=A0 (Plus it only happened
once.)
It is a bit more complex than simply that we're coded for 3D,
though.=C2=A0 We are, but what that means is more complicated than it
initially sounds.=C2=A0 We don't see in three dimensions.=C2=A0 We se=
e in
two dimensions, twice, from slightly different angles, and use the
differences to determine three dimensional structure.=C2=A0 These day=
s
you can do the same thing with two pictures from different
positions and a computer program, it's called "structure from
motion" (the "motion" being moving the camera from angle one to
angle two, and then probably other angles as well because why stop
at two?)
If you close one eye (or only have the one, or don't have two
working-together normally), though, even though what you're seeing
is a single two dimensional image, you're still seeing three
dimensional objects, and any movement allows the same kind of
difference-to-structure as having the two standard offset eyes
open (though our brains aren't nearly as adept at that compared to
just having two eyes open and working in concert.)
Applying the same principles to four dimensional objects, an eye
evolved for a 4D would return a three dimensional "image" and
you'd use two such 3D viewing eyes, offset of course, to get the
4D structure.=C2=A0 But, as with our 2D viewing eyes, closing one of
them wouldn't mean you're not looking at 4D objects anymore.
So to really visualize in 4D what is needed is to be able to
visualize a 3D space as seen from every possible angle at once=
.
As far as I know, no one can do that.=C2=A0 Might be why my
pseudo-religious mathematical experience was a hypersphere, every
possible angle of a sphere returns "looks like a circle from this
angle too."=C2=A0 But, even with something that simple, I only ever d=
id
it once.=C2=A0 And that's not because of a lack of trying, I simply
can't duplicate the experience.
But if you could, somehow, do that (see 3D from every possible
angle), then it would be the same as 4D viewing without depth
perception.
Seeing in 4D requires seeing in true 3D, and human beings can't
actually do that.=C2=A0 We compare two two dimensional images in a
brain designed to gather depth information from the differences
between them and see in a sort of 2.5-D.=C2=A0 We're not just
hard-coded for a 3D world, we're hard-coded for viewing that world
from a single position (with the only wiggle room being the
distance from one eye to the other, said wiggle room being used to
determine depth.)
- Chris Witham, who has been meaning to say, "Hello," for years>.
=C2=A0 (chris the cynic)
ps Hi everyone.
On 11/22/2015 9:35 PM, class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href=3D"mailto:llamaonacid@gmail.com">llamaonacid@gmail.com
[4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
Is the human brain capable of actually visualizing
hyperobjects and has anyone here been capable of doing so?
=20=20=20=20=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01D126C2.28894250
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wow, I like such explanations.
Best regards
Ed
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Melinda Green melinda@superliminal.com [4D_Cubing]=20
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Visualizing Hyperobjects
=20=20=20=20
Hello Chris,
I'm glad that you decided to join the discussion!
The closest I've come to truly perceiving something in 4D comes from the =
4D shift-dragging rotation in MC4D. We get so used to seeing these projecti=
ons into 3D that it's easy to forget about their 4D nature. We all know tha=
t that the puzzle consists of eight 3D faces but we forget that they bound =
a rectilinear region of 4-space. It's analogous to how solvers of the 3D tw=
isty puzzles are very aware of the patterns of the stickers on the outside =
of their favorite objects and are only occasionally aware of its volume and=
the mechanism inside it. Looked at this way, the Rubik's cube is really a =
2D puzzle, and MC4D is really only 3D. That gives us plenty of opportunity =
to perceive the true nature of this puzzle, but not of the object itself. T=
he 3D "skin" of this object completely fills my 3D mind, but where is the 4=
D volume that it bounds? When I'm shift-dragging in MC4D I sometimes get gl=
impses into of a kind of finite cubic hollowness, but it quickly vanishes. =
The good thing is that the experience is repeatable.
The only other thing I want to say is that visualization has little to do=
with vision. I'm glad that you pointed out how motion parallax allows ster=
eo vision with only a single eye. One eye should be enough to "see" in any =
number of dimensions, but notice that you can still visualize just fine wit=
hout any eyes. If you close your eyes and think about a model car, you can =
perceive it from any angle just by thinking about it. Actually, that's a tr=
ick that does take some effort, and some people are not very good at it, I =
think because it specifically involves vision. It's the mental equivalent o=
f projecting a 3D object into a 2D picture. The result is that you can only=
look at one projection at a time. Not exactly the "all directions at once"=
you are hoping for.
But consider this. Imagine holding that model car in your hands with your=
eyes closed. You can now be completely aware of all of its features at the=
same time! Even people who were blind from birth are quite able to visuali=
ze in 3D. It's as if we all have a kind of stage inside our minds that we c=
an fill with an awareness of whatever we like, including ourselves. Especia=
lly including ourselves. That's how we measure and judge the distance and s=
peed and potential danger of cars and tigers and such in our environment. I=
t's crucial for most species to have this sort of awareness, and that's why=
it evolved.
As llamaonacid said (what is your name please?), AI can be programmed to =
do similar things in any number of dimensions. It's helpful to realize that=
computers and software also evolve. Their evolution is not driven by natur=
al selection, but market forces still drive a very real form of evolution. =
In all cases, evolution is a form of optimization towards various goals whe=
re only the fittest survive. Evolution requires goals. We evolved over bill=
ions of years to survive in a 3D world, so that's not just what we're good =
at, it's also a large part of what we are. Computers are evolving against s=
ome very different goals. One of the biggest uses of computer power today i=
s in the linear programming field of resource allocation. These systems nat=
urally deal with objects involving millions of dimensions, and have gotten =
very good at it. I can imagine a future in which they become self-aware, bu=
t I can't imagine how I could ever become like them, or how they could beco=
me like me, because we are simply evolved for different things. I can on th=
e other hand imagine something about the lives of future robots and self-dr=
iving cars, because they are evolving to function in some of the same envir=
onments in which we evolved. Notice also how it would be next to impossible=
to teach a linear programming computer to drive a car, or for a self-drivi=
ng car to crunch linear programming problems. It would be analogous to tryi=
ng to pull an umbrella through a chain-link fence. With enough enough effor=
t, you might actually manage it, but you probably wouldn't even call it an =
umbrella at that point.
-Melinda
On 11/23/2015 5:13 AM, Chris cpw@maine.rr.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
The closest thing I ever had to a religious experience was when I visua=
lized a hypersphere, at least as much as I'm capable of visualizing anythin=
g. Haven't been able to duplicate the experience.
So, on the one hand, that's still a "no" because my ability to visualiz=
e is kind of . . . not there. I've never found the words to describe what =
it is like. It's almost seeing, but not quite there. On the other hand, t=
o the extent that I can "see" anything in my mind's eye, I did see it that =
one time. On Zaphoid Beeblebrox's third hand, an n-dimensional sphere is a=
lways going to be the easiest thing to visualize. It looks the same from e=
very angle so if it isn't textured or colored, there's no complexity; looki=
ng at a sphere is always shows you a circle, looking at a circle if you're =
in a 2D environment always shows you a line of the same length. Shading is=
probably different though, otherwise how do you know from a single angle t=
hat it's really an n-sphere not an [n minus 1] sphere? (E.g. how do you kn=
ow it's a sphere not a circular disk?)
Combine the simplicity of a hypersphere with the fact that nothing I "v=
isualize" actually quite reaches the level of real visualization (I'm in en=
vy of those who can truly visualize) and we're back to Melinda's answer of,=
"No." (Plus it only happened once.)
It is a bit more complex than simply that we're coded for 3D, though. =
We are, but what that means is more complicated than it initially sounds. =
We don't see in three dimensions. We see in two dimensions, twice, from sl=
ightly different angles, and use the differences to determine three dimensi=
onal structure. These days you can do the same thing with two pictures fro=
m different positions and a computer program, it's called "structure from m=
otion" (the "motion" being moving the camera from angle one to angle two, a=
nd then probably other angles as well because why stop at two?)
If you close one eye (or only have the one, or don't have two working-t=
ogether normally), though, even though what you're seeing is a single two d=
imensional image, you're still seeing three dimensional objects, and any mo=
vement allows the same kind of difference-to-structure as having the two st=
andard offset eyes open (though our brains aren't nearly as adept at that c=
ompared to just having two eyes open and working in concert.)
Applying the same principles to four dimensional objects, an eye evolve=
d for a 4D would return a three dimensional "image" and you'd use two such =
3D viewing eyes, offset of course, to get the 4D structure. But, as with o=
ur 2D viewing eyes, closing one of them wouldn't mean you're not looking at=
4D objects anymore.
So to really visualize in 4D what is needed is to be able to visualize =
a 3D space as seen from every possible angle at once. As far as I know, no =
one can do that. Might be why my pseudo-religious mathematical experience =
was a hypersphere, every possible angle of a sphere returns "looks like a c=
ircle from this angle too." But, even with something that simple, I only e=
ver did it once. And that's not because of a lack of trying, I simply can'=
t duplicate the experience.
But if you could, somehow, do that (see 3D from every possible angle), =
then it would be the same as 4D viewing without depth perception.
Seeing in 4D requires seeing in true 3D, and human beings can't actuall=
y do that. We compare two two dimensional images in a brain designed to ga=
ther depth information from the differences between them and see in a sort =
of 2.5-D. We're not just hard-coded for a 3D world, we're hard-coded for v=
iewing that world from a single position (with the only wiggle room being t=
he distance from one eye to the other, said wiggle room being used to deter=
mine depth.)
- Chris Witham, who has been meaning to say, "Hello," for years.
(chris the cynic)
ps Hi everyone.
On 11/22/2015 9:35 PM, llamaonacid@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
Is the human brain capable of actually visualizing hyperobjects and h=
as anyone here been capable of doing so?
=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01D126C2.28894250
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF
Hello Chris,
I'm glad that you decided to join the=20
discussion!
The closest I've come to truly perceiving something in=
4D=20
comes from the 4D shift-dragging rotation in MC4D. We get so used to seei=
ng=20
these projections into 3D that it's easy to forget about their 4D nature.=
We=20
all know that that the puzzle consists of eight 3D faces but we forget th=
at=20
they bound a rectilinear region of 4-space. It's analogous to how solvers=
of=20
the 3D twisty puzzles are very aware of the patterns of the stickers on t=
he=20
outside of their favorite objects and are only occasionally aware of its=
=20
volume and the mechanism inside it. Looked at this way, the Rubik's cube =
is=20
really a 2D puzzle, and MC4D is really only 3D. That gives us plenty of=20
opportunity to perceive the true nature of this puzzle, but not of the ob=
ject=20
itself. The 3D "skin" of this object completely fills my 3D mind, but whe=
re is=20
the 4D volume that it bounds? When I'm shift-dragging in MC4D I sometimes=
get=20
glimpses into of a kind of finite cubic hollowness, but it quickly vanish=
es.=20
The good thing is that the experience is repeatable.
The only othe=
r=20
thing I want to say is that visualization has little to do with vision. I=
'm=20
glad that you pointed out how motion parallax allows stereo vision with o=
nly a=20
single eye. One eye should be enough to "see" in any number of dimensions=
, but=20
notice that you can still visualize just fine without any eyes. If you cl=
ose=20
your eyes and think about a model car, you can perceive it from any angle=
just=20
by thinking about it. Actually, that's a trick that does take some effort=
, and=20
some people are not very good at it, I think because it specifically invo=
lves=20
vision. It's the mental equivalent of projecting a 3D object into a 2D=20
picture. The result is that you can only look at one projection at a time=
. Not=20
exactly the "all directions at once" you are hoping for.
But consi=
der=20
this. Imagine holding that model car in your hands with your eyes closed.=
You=20
can now be completely aware of all of its features at the same time! Even=
=20
people who were blind from birth are quite able to visualize in 3D. It's =
as if=20
we all have a kind of stage inside our minds that we can fill with an=20
awareness of whatever we like, including ourselves. Especially including=
=20
ourselves. That's how we measure and judge the distance and speed and=20
potential danger of cars and tigers and such in our environment. It's cru=
cial=20
for most species to have this sort of awareness, and that's why it=20
evolved.
As llamaonacid said (what is your name please?), AI can b=
e=20
programmed to do similar things in any number of dimensions. It's helpful=
to=20
realize that computers and software also evolve. Their evolution is not d=
riven=20
by natural selection, but market forces still drive a very real form of=20
evolution. In all cases, evolution is a form of optimization towards vari=
ous=20
goals where only the fittest survive. Evolution requires goals. We evolve=
d=20
over billions of years to survive in a 3D world, so that's not just what =
we're=20
good at, it's also a large part of what we are. Computers are evolving ag=
ainst=20
some very different goals. One of the biggest uses of computer power toda=
y is=20
in the linear programming field of resource allocation. These systems=20
naturally deal with objects involving millions of dimensions, and have go=
tten=20
very good at it. I can imagine a future in which they become self-aware, =
but I=20
can't imagine how I could ever become like them, or how they could become=
like=20
me, because we are simply evolved for different things. I can on the othe=
r=20
hand imagine something about the lives of future robots and self-driving =
cars,=20
because they are evolving to function in some of the same environments in=
=20
which we evolved. Notice also how it would be next to impossible to teach=
a=20
linear programming computer to drive a car, or for a self-driving car to=
=20
crunch linear programming problems. It would be analogous to trying to pu=
ll an=20
umbrella through a chain-link fence. With enough enough effort, you might=
=20
actually manage it, but you probably wouldn't even call it an umbrella at=
that=20
point.
-Melinda