Thread: *~* V-WILD : The foundations *~*

Originally Posted by arby

Did I introduce you to concepts? =D I totally forgot if you were already familiar with them when we talked about them. You certainly treat them in the same manner I do.

Anyways, great way to describe them. There's also something related that you might be interested in which I don't think I've shown you before. It's chunking. Basically, the theory of concept-categorized thought is valid even to the lab-tested degree.

I personally don't know if you introduced me to it or not, I've talked to a lot of people about these types of things. I don't remember understanding it to well though. I've been told to see everything as one picture and not several objects.

I do find chunking interesting, and I believe it is the same thing essentially as concepts. I was going to give the word example to explain that the brain can learn to group sounds/letters and such. I'm often not aware of psychology terms usually, I understand these things, but through observations that I make myself.

I find it interesting that sometimes I can see the concept of a picture that I never previously saw. I mean not everything I see in my head is exactly spot on even if I recall from memory. I believe some of the details are randomly generated (well their based on what concept I have, so not so random). But sometimes I can bring two things, like a specific person and a specific location together and create a new concept. See thats what I try to do when I visualize. If I notice their are two different concepts, like an object and its background, the image is more unstable. But I can group the two into a combined concept, and solidify it.

By doing this all I hope to create more connections in the brain, so that I can see clearer concepts of what I want to see faster.

Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod

I find it interesting that sometimes I can see the concept of a picture that I never previously saw. I mean not everything I see in my head is exactly spot on even if I recall from memory. I believe some of the details are randomly generated (well their based on what concept I have, so not so random). But sometimes I can bring two things, like a specific person and a specific location together and create a new concept. See thats what I try to do when I visualize. If I notice their are two different concepts, like an object and its background, the image is more unstable. But I can group the two into a combined concept, and solidify it.

By doing this all I hope to create more connections in the brain, so that I can see clearer concepts of what I want to see faster.

Seeing everything as one concept is definitely the way to go. Of course, it's not one concept as in it is all one thing, rather it is one concept in the exact same way as what we see in real life is a single concept (but also multiple concepts at the same time). It's probably best not to think about it because it probably only really makes real functional sense in the occipital lobe (where sight is processed) where it is processed.

I think that's an important thing to point out though =D It's not random stuff you're pulling together and trying to hold together... It's stuff that mix and about which you can say "it is". (That phrase seems to hold more power when I say it in my head and think of the implications ;P)

Anyhow, I think you should look into psychology stuff. You'd probably find it fascinating. I have something about the true nature of how you process sight lying around somewhere... I'll post it and what it means later on... fascinating and relevant stuff, that.

Nice thread, I'm a big fan of visualization and personally feel, after playing with this in the past, that it has much more potential than people give it credit for.

I don't have time to add much now but I just wanted to add my appreciation for the post, ill likely come back and share some of my findings in the near future.

I promised an overview of visual processing, so I'll throw a few things down here and my experiments with them, just for kicks.

Visual perception is not one unified perception. It is divided into 4 separate categories. Form, color, depth and motion.

Form: Essentially the shape of the object. Responsible for your ability to tell where one thing ends and another begins. At it's base, it differentiates a circle from a square.

Color: The color that you perceive object as. Pretty simple.

Depth: The distance away that you see the object as.

Motion: Your ability to tell if an object is moving or is stationary. This one is probably the most fascinating of all. Applying motion to a visualization without changing how you see it will still result in you thinking it is moving even though it doesn't move. Head hurting ensues. See below for more about this.

Now, your first instinct is probably to try and think about these in terms of what you can see. Lets say you want to think about shape so you compare a red circle to a red square in your mind's eye. But wait, WHOOPS. You have just invoked depth and color as well in order to see those shapes. You might try and say "well I'll just think of it as colorless and hanging in space at an indeterminate depth" The problem is, as soon as you see it, you DO use those attributes. You'll probably see it as white and you will see it at a particular depth away.

Each of these 4 attributes on it's own can only be conceptually described. It took me the better part of a few hours to try and be able to "feel" (theres no better word to describe it) form without seeing it. I was never able to get color by itself. Depth was fairly easy and motion was almost intuitive. By the end of all this, my head seriously hurt and I was completely out of it/I felt fairly disoriented XD.

If you want to try and pick out a single visual property yourself, try motion. You can apply it to an otherwise properly visualized object. Lets say you visualize a rectangular prism in your head. Set it rotating for a second just to get a feel for it. Now, try to rotate it again without letting the color, form or depth change. You will know when you've succeeded. You may have to go for a little walk afterward.

I did a whole lot of experiments with just combining 2 of the elements, altering 1, creating visual paradoxes (not allowing one property to change with the other) and overall just trying to define my visual space in terms of these 4 things. It doesn't seem to have helped in creating environments, though leading me to concretely believe that it is in fact a different process to create an environment then think about a single object consciously. I'm leaning towards the environment's creation is more in part due to processing and assimilation outside our direct consciousness (but probably right on the boundaries) and thus related to our thoughts about the "gut".

It also might be an explanation for why dreams are so weird. If the main contributor to dream imagery and dream logic is the space right outside our consciousness, it would make sense that it doesn't follow any determinable pattern. At any one time, the region that would be classified as right outside conscious awareness would be pretty random (but related in slight, yet abstract ways to the current awareness which is a PERFECT description of dream progression).

Thoughts?

I have a little mind trick for you guys who want to feel what the conceptual side of visualization is like.

Imagine an object (Say, a big red rectangular prism or something) spinning in your mind's eye. Look at it from a couple angles, get a good feel for what it's like. Now, either turn your viewpoint away from the object or move the object around and behind you so that you cannot see it. BUT KEEP IT SPINNING.

So, now you should have a spinning object in your conscious awareness but not be able to see it. You have the conceptual representation only. This method is actually pretty stable and doesn't hurt your head so it's great if you want to try and understand the fundamentals of visualization.

If you can't get the object to exist even when it goes out of your vision, it means the object did not ever exist conceptually (or you aren't allowing object permanence, you should be able to tell if you are). If it does not exist conceptually, you are essentially just "painting pretty colors on your mind's eye like a canvas" and not really making things in your mind. Try and follow the logic "it is" therefore I see it instead of I see it therefore "it is". This is a fundamental of visualization and you will get DRAMATICALLY better results (ie. results, period. you have to have the conceptual knowledge of your surroundings to be in a dream. The only way you can get that by "painting stuff on your mind's eye" is if it primes you to get the proper, conceptually driven, visualization of it)