Well, yes and no. I have some ideas of what involves face recognition but I am not a cognitive psychologist or similar, so really anything I would say on that score would be a pure guess. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! kind regards
Flatland was a social comentary. It had nothing to do with physics or mathematics in any way, but some people (esp. high school honors teachers) like to pretend that interesting things can be learned from the book that couldn't be learned much more thoroughly from a mathematics textbook.
Not quite, tarrou. Seeing a sphere in 3D requires visual clues to differentiate it from a well rendered 2D picture (an optical illusion) in that your left eye does not see the exact same image that your right eye sees ... If the picture is not a part of a background, and you are not free to move about, you would not be able to tell which was the sphere and which was the picture of a sphere (a circle). Try this: Cut out a paper circle and a strip of paper whose length is the same as the diameter of the circle. Make a dual 'pinhole' viewer and place it so that you can only view the edge of the table on which someone else places both the circle and the strip so you are only able to see their edges. Only if you are able to move the viewer from side to side will you be able to determine which is which without raising the viewer. Although the light bending is an interesting thought, it is not addressed in Flatland and is therefore, AFAIAC, extraneous to the discussion. Take care and welcome to Sciforums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
§lîñk€¥™ Although I have a bachelor's in psychology, my master's is in Criminal Justice. Couldn't handle the psychology of the time (late '50's) ... And not too much of the CJ. But what the hell, Uncle Sam was willing to pick up the tab to 'professionalize' Corrections and I enjoyed the late '60's, early '70's campus scene. So, if you can accept my just being a curious cuss, I'll offer my ideas with the proviso that we start a new thread over in Human Science (more appropriate) and you can then offer yours. Deal? Best Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
White Knight, Suggest you go back to the James R's post at the beginning of the thread and read what he had to say. I can't say it any better. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hehe, didn't like the LSD eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why look a gift horse in the mouth? No one would rightly blame you for feathering your nest when given the opportunity, or of excessing in par-tay. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Much as I appreciate you laying down a friendly gauntlet, so to speak, I'm not sure if what I have to say has any depth or would be worthy of much more than a passing glance and dismissal. I'll make a deal. Seeing as you're the one being curious Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, if you start the thread over there and post me a link to it, I'll take a read and throw in my two cents. How's that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! kind regards
The acid was great until they started tossing in other junk, §lîñk€¥™ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ah yes, Boone's Farm and Tantric Yoga on a city roof top. Great times, those. Anyway, before starting the thread discussed, I grunched a bit and realized that my thoughts were rather superficial at best and decided to do a bit of Googling to see what was new and exciting ... Nada! It was like stepping back two score years and thinking 'the old neighborhood hasn't changed all that much'. The thing that I found most interesting was that I didn't find a single paper that addressed the old 'they all look the same to me' aspect of recognition. An aspect which, whether applied to our species or any other is progressive. As though the initial observation creates a rough template that is increasingly refined through repetitive observation/viewing thanks to a hard-wired mechanism that is most evident in the 'imprinting' by chicks, but is not totally lacking in our species. Or present, but too 'animal-like' to be seriously considered (except by someone like Desmond Morris, a zoologist). Enough rambling. Sorry. Best Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Flat surface - with no thickness. Even if we assume (for the sake of imagination/visualisation) it to be a billionth of a billionth of 1 nanometer it is sufficient to slice thro the sub-atomic nuclear particles... Matter does not exist in flat-land !? May be patches of fields of varying strength and type..!!.. Pl rebuke gently..!!!... if wrong .!
Since Flatland exists only in one's imagination, assume it to have zero thickness ... That being the case, 'matter' exists in Flatland ... In the same sense that it exists in 'thought'. Don't know what else to reply, everneo Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
according to our current theories about what matter is, well, it is a point particle. you can have a point existing in 1, 2,3 or any dimensional space you want. of course, some of the properties of matter depend on the dimensionality. for example, the gravitational force is 1/r^2 dependent in three dimensions. in two dimensions graviation force would be 1/r dependent. for some particular reasons, classical electromagnetism as we currently understand it, just wouldn t be there at all... the zero thickness of two dimensional space is no more a problem for particles in a 2-dimensinoal universe than the zero 4-dimensional depth of our 3 dimensional universe is for the real particles in our 3dimensional universe
Thanks, lethe. It almost makes sense to me now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good book to read is: Geometry, Relativity and the 4th dimension. R. Rucker. That'll sort things out.
