eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/11/90)
In article <14094@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >Ultimately, we may be able to expand our ability to visualize in more than >the usual 2 or 3 dimensions. Imagine in the future a child using a direct >brain input device. Much like someone learning two languages from childhood, >it may be possible to adapt the brain to seeing (read: perceiving) in ways >we can't now understand. A digression: I was a math major as an undergrad. I remember Max Weiss, one of my profs drawing some Cartesian axes on the board, the standard way, the first two orthogonal to one another, the Z (sorry, graphics), the X "coming out" (Left handed system) drawing in the plane of the board at "30 degrees" as most people do [I didn't mention those who think they do 3D graphics but don't], and then drawing dotted lines from the same origin and saying, "Yeah, and there are all those other dimensions." Sean, it will only come with learning. There are limitations with those imagination (why I made the retina comment). I think it is far more important to be exposed to different ideas. I had a class in non-Euclidean geometry (using Wolfe's old book). I remember coming out of the final looking at the 4 angles of a doorway and thinking, "The sides of that quadralateral sum to less than 360 degress..." The kid has to spend some time, maybe a lot of time working on his Brainstorm project. A person presented with brain stim like you propose is like the creature in Abbott's Flatland. They will do little better than try to fit it into an existing frame of reference. We must also be aware of not creating "little green men" or "demons" which we posit and plan for future technologies. Not to throw too much water on your fire, remember that Abbott's book was write about 1890. Some people today are thinking about tomorrow, in a non-Euclidean sense, the trick is to find the 'right' ones. This is where all those hyperbolic and elliptic functions, and weird relativistic ideas get used. >*** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism >*** in the British Navy. Delicious, don't mind if I do. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?