# rules are made to be broken? and others...



## eydryan (Sep 24, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eydryan*
> _a picture is an isolated moment in time, and time usually has the habit of being boring in 9/10 cases._
> 
> ...


 
and so i did. my reply lower.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 24, 2005)

first of all i must admit that what i do is art naive, i have not really studied the history of photography cuz my parents decided economy is more important that photography. who knows? anyway, i am starting to piece up the list at the beginning of this forum with the favourite photographers  so, if you have the time, please explain what those moments are about...

about the closed mind and looking at a photo again for details: pre-judging is what advertising is all about and as i see it the money in this art comes from adverts, pics in magazines which impress the viewer instantly either with cliches or with stunning new cliches  photographical art does not sell. or does it? this debate i believe would go on forever but fmpov it doesn't sell as good as adverts. free your mind is a good thing but i am afraid you cannot do it without proper...training. a free mind is something hard to define so it is also hard to obtain. i personally have no idea how to free my mind and i admit it...

there are some things which keep coming up when critique is involved. those are mainly the rules i speak about. however you mentioned three rules. which are they? 

and also, i have a big problem and don't know how to cope with it: when i am on the street mainly doing nothing without my camera i see all kinds of brilliant shots, however when i take the camera it all fades away, my inspiration is nullified. also happens when i am on a vacation, i usually have to choose between photos and vacation... it's quite a conundrum...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 24, 2005)

A lot of the problem boils down to why you are taking pictures.
Do you do it because others pay you to do it - or do you do it for your own personal satisfaction?
If you take pictures that need to be commercial then they do have to conform to type - the people who commission them have a pretty clear idea of what they want and what your picture should look like. In fact, when I worked in Advertising the Art Director quite often presented you with a sketch of the picture and the photographer's job was to re-create the image as a photograph.
Taking pictures for yourself means just that - taking pictures that satisfy you and do what you want them to. You shouldn't worry if no-one else likes them though as you are not taking them for them.
'Art' Photography is the problem area. Once you start wanting people to buy your pictures you can't help but try to take pictures that people like. We have had a discussion about this before, though, so I'm not going to resurrect it. Those interested can mine the archives for it.
As far as looking at pictures is concerned, I have had countless arguments with people over the years who hold the belief that looking at Photographs is second nature and an ability we all have from birth. They are prepared to accept that you have to learn how to read and how to look at a painting but they don't think that this extends to looking at a photograph.
To quote Sherlock Holmes 'we all _see_ but very few of us _observe_'.
Take a simple thing like subject matter. Every picture has to have a subject - but what constitutes a subject? The usual belief is that it should be a solid object that can be identified and is the picture's focal point. Preferably it should jump off the page at you.
Why?
Equally valid as subject material is mood, emotion, feeling. These are not solid objects but you can still photograph them - or at least embody them in a photograph. And then there is Landscape.
If you have one object in a landscape that stands out and is a focus of interest then the picture ceases to be a landscape. It becomes a picture of that object.
In a landscape it should be the landscape _as a whole_ that is the subject matter.
The majority of what are considered to be great pictures are ones that don't immediately grab you. They are ones that you have to work at to find out what they are all about. You explore them and find new things to enjoy.
Take a look at this image by the legendary Eugene Atget
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/atget/atget_drum.jpg

What is the focus of this image? Take your time and really look. What do you see?
If you are looking right you should see one thing...that leads you to see another...that leads you yet further...
The picture has many layers and subtleties. Perhaps they were not all originally intended but you can never know. I find it hard to believe that someone who spent their life taking pictures was not aware of what was going on in there, but that is just my view. It doesn't matter because inteded or not they are there.
As you look and see each successive layer your attitude and feelings towards the image should change as well. I still get a kick every time I look at it and as the real focal point of the image appears I always smile. See if you do.
This image typifies Photography. Many people would give it a couple of seconds of their attention if that, and write it off as just another old photo. It has historical importance, true. But it has so much more and the photographer still speaks through it. You just have to listen.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh, come on! No-one got a comment about the Atget photo? It's one of my favourite pictures of all time and is a work of genius.
If you really can't see it PM me and I'll talk you through it.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 24, 2005)

um well, i can only see three layers: the building, the grassy knoll reflected in the shop windows and the shop employees staring through. and it looks like a good picture but maybe i'm not actually seeing all the layers? i didn't reply because i am tired and can't quite think straight right now and earlier i wasn't in the mood, but surely there is much more to discuss here. tomorrow or latest monday i promise to really reply like i should, ok?

maybe you can also suggest a little project for my outing tomorrow? it has to be urban, and i really need a theme, the bad weather is draining all my inspiration. got an idea?


----------



## danalec99 (Sep 24, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> the shop employees staring through.


The reflection on the shop door and the folks inside looks stunning. I do have doubts that the man on the right may be the reflection of a passerby... don't know for sure.

Seemingly a simple image, but it draws me in more, the more I view it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 24, 2005)

Look closely. 
First you see the shop with all the railings and moulding. Fascinating in it's own right and worth a lot of your time to eamine it. I think you can actually read the signboard on the left of the door in the original.
Then you see the trees reflected either side in the windows - which leads you into the windows themselves and what is in there.
Then you see the two people in the shop doorway looking at you through the glass.
Then you see that there is something reflected in the door glass.
It's the camera that took the picture.
To the right of it you see.... the photographer (Atget) standing there.
You move up to look at his face and see.....
NOW do you see the joke?


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 24, 2005)

> If you are looking right



I don't think theres any right way to look at a photo.  ANd if there is a natural narative offocus points, if you don't see it then the picture could be more successful.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 24, 2005)

Daniel said:
			
		

> I don't think theres any right way to look at a photo.  ANd if there is a natural narative offocus points, if you don't see it then the picture could be more successful.


Of course there is a right way to look at a picture - with an open mind and on it's own terms.
If you don't see things that are in a picture it doesn't mean that they aren't there, it may mean that you don't know how to look. That's where the open mind comes in.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 24, 2005)

But I do have an open mind, I know none of the rules of photography except make sure the lens cap is off.

Also the sequence of seeing things doesn't apply to everyone.  It isn't the sequence I noticed things in.  Maybe this picture is too small but I don't get the joke and find it hard to make things out.


----------



## vonnagy (Sep 24, 2005)

> Equally valid as subject material is mood, emotion, feeling. These are not solid objects but you can still photograph them - or at least embody them in a photograph. And then there is Landscape.
> If you have one object in a landscape that stands out and is a focus of interest then the picture ceases to be a landscape. It becomes a picture of that object.
> In a landscape it should be the landscape as a whole that is the subject matter.
> The majority of what are considered to be great pictures are ones that don't immediately grab you. They are ones that you have to work at to find out what they are all about. You explore them and find new things to enjoy.



I totally agree with that. 99% of the photos I take are 'easy to digest' especially the landscape ones I take. The images that I pride myself for taking are far less dramatic but can be interpreted many ways outside of the realm of 'pretty picture'. Unfortunately, I have been inspired to take a very few of these types of shots, and when i do show them to most folks the response I always get is that 'I like your landscapes better!' :mrgreen:

The shot from atget is quite inspiring, thanks for posting that!


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 24, 2005)

Daniel said:
			
		

> Maybe this picture is too small but I don't get the joke and find it hard to make things out.


Can you see the faces of the people in the shop door window?
Can you see the reflection of the photographer in the shop door window?
Who's head is on the photographer's shoulders?

Of course some people see things in different ways and in different orders, but the order I gave things in is the order which the majority of people discover things in the picture. This statement is, of course, based on my own observations and experiences over years of teaching photography. It is the order in which most of my students have found their way around the photo (with no help or direction from me, I might add) - and I have shown this image to many hundreds of students. I thought it reasonable to assume that most people here would see it in the same way. It isn't important though.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 24, 2005)

I have no idea whos head is on the photographers body.  I assume its his.  I'm probably missing something.  :scratch:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

The focus of your gaze - and therefore of the image - changes as you look deeper. There are several levels that it works on. Which level you stop at is up to you - but it can be a journey of discovery and tell you something more about the photographer than the scene being photographed.
You can see the image as a straight documentary shot. The cafe front with it's truncated signage and ornate carving and marble effect, railings in front of the window, the drum over the door, the scuffed and scarred door itself - all of these make a tremendous subject in themselves.
And yet there is more.
The bars on the windows and the claustrophobic framing make the thing feel enclosed and insular, almost defensive. It is as if it is trying to protect itself from the outside world. Then you see the trees reflected in the windows and you realise that this Cafe is not huddled in an alley or dingy street but is facing a large open space. 
The faces that can be dimly seen peering through the door window - probably the owner and a waiter - make you aware of the inside of the Cafe. The bottles and water boiler seen in the windows increase this awareness. The shop front becomes a barrier or divide: the world outside from the world inside. You can read a lot more into this - and the Gateway represented - if you wish.
Looking at the reflections to find out more about the location of the Cafe you become aware that you can see the camera taking the picture.
This brings in to play another layer of awareness. You have the world outside, the small world inside the cafe, and the even smaller world inside the camera. You are made aware of the moment of capture.
But if you can see the camera then... yes, _there_ is the photographer, standing calmly next to his equipment, looking at the scene. And because he is reflected in the window, looking out of the photograph and at you. But...
The head on his shoulders is not his. Sitting there in perfect position on the reflected shoulders, gazing out at you, is the face of a man _inside_ the Cafe.
The photographer confounds your expectations. Instead of seeing him looking at you, you see one of the subjects in the image looking at the photographer.
The picture plane becomes your point of contact.
The photographer looks at you through the photograph - and in turn you look at him through the photograph.
It is a very subtle, and very clever, visual joke.
My own personal view is that it is one of his greatest pictures. And it tells me a lot, I think, about the photographer.

Learn a little about Atget here:
http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/eugene.htm
His work is well worth exploring.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 25, 2005)

i see this as a matter of personal taste. i've noticed from the second look that the head is that of the man inside although it took some figuring out but it does not strike me as all tyhat... maybe it;s because of my little or none art education and therefore my quality ranking is quite shallow. i admit it's a nice picture but i fail to see the genius. it is clever but i don't think he actually vcould think the last layer. if he could then indeeed he's good, very good... 

looking art his other work, i see that he likes layers and well that is impressive, especially the shot with the bridge.

but thinking again i must disagree. opening your mind may in some cases actually diminguish the quality of your pictures and/or inspiration. thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliche an open mind may confuse you as opposed just obeying the rules... it's hard to say of course what an open mind and maybe those few cases are indeed very few. but without knowing for sure what you arelooking for, and just opening your mind to everything i have realised i can't focus because i don't know on what.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> i admit it's a nice picture but i fail to see the genius. it is clever but i don't think he actually vcould think the last layer. if he could then indeeed he's good, very good...


I doubt if he read everything in to it that I have - mine is a modern analysis done well over 100 years later.
But it is quite obvious that the position of his body to the face in the doorway is no accident. He would have seen the reflection of the camera and himself and it would have been a simple matter to move slightly and get rid of it. He chose not to. Instead he carefully positioned himself with the face in the window - you would be lucky to get that happening that well by accident. You must remember that he used a plate camera which took some setting up and he would probably have only taken the one shot.
Given that the juxtaposition was done on purpose you have to ask the question 'why?'. I know what would have gone through my mind in that situation. I don't see why it shouldn't have gone through Atget's.
If this were an isolated image then I would, of course, hold a different view. But it fits in perfectly with all of his other work, and by looking at his other work you can get an overall feel for the man.
The juxtaposition was entirely purposeful.
If you want further proof, try taking a similar shot and see how much work you have to put in to get it right.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> but thinking again i must disagree. opening your mind may in some cases actually diminguish the quality of your pictures and/or inspiration. thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliche an open mind may confuse you as opposed just obeying the rules... it's hard to say of course what an open mind and maybe those few cases are indeed very few. but without knowing for sure what you arelooking for, and just opening your mind to everything i have realised i can't focus because i don't know on what.


You misunderstand me.
I meant that you should keep an open mind when _viewing_ photographs.
When _taking_ photographs a different approach is needed - but then, they are two different and distinct acts.
Taking pictures requires that you have some idea of what you want and what you are trying to achieve (why you are taking the picture), if only in a general way. You should try to remain receptive though. Circumstances might offer you a better way or a clearer view. Or dictate something else.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 25, 2005)

hmm, true, but also when looking at a picture some standards must be kept. as you said, landscapes are defined somehow. and you cannot look at a picture without at least making a closed mind decision about what it is and only then can you actually see what the picture has to say. well, anyway i feel like i'm not making very much sense so let's leave this for tomorrow pls because i'm in a very weird mood right now... not very intellectual today


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

You keep an open mind by being aware of what you look for in a picture and how you look. If you are aware of your own preferences then you can make allowances for them. Just because you don't care for an image does not mean that it is not any good.
That's enough for Sunday morning - agreed


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 25, 2005)

_i have not really studied the history of photography cuz my parents decided economy is more important that photography_

You dont need to go to school to learn some history. I dont know what type of resources you have where you live, but I highly suggest, The History of Photography by Beaumont Newhall. Any decent library should have it, or a used book site, or auction site. Other good book, just to learn and expand the mind, Photographers on Photography, out of print but easily found used, and Westons Day Books still in print, although in crappy soft bound now. 

Photography as art is very much about personal growth and experience, not just those you have with a camera, some of the most influential experiences on my photographic vision were far from photography related or were they...

_as i see it the money in this art comes from adverts, pics in magazines which impress the viewer instantly either with cliches or with stunning new cliches photographical art does not sell._

If you are interested in making money from photography, fine art photography is not for you. Unless, you are ready to starve, be rejected, laughed at, be confronted with stiff competition, etc. and still continue to pour your heart and soul into your craft to produce the best possible work you can day after day. 

I dont know a single fine art photographer that goes out to specifically make a photograph with the intent to make money.

_it has to be urban, and i really need a theme,_

Why do you need a theme? Just go and make photographs, do what feels good, if it means just going and watching and taking no photographs, you have still succeeded in experiencing something new, the pictures you make in the end are just a bonus. Dont worry about rules either, be aware of them sure, but dont let them limit how you interact with your environment, just be more conscious of what is in your view finder or on the ground glass, patterns, space, light, etc. things that occur naturally around you, not just the moment of the subject or dismiss everything else around it. As you make photographs and produce a body of work themes will just appear naturally in your photographs, sometime it takes others to point it out to you, but it will surface.

_thing is, if you are used to taking photos which are supposed to conform to say an idea or some society cliché_

I mentioned this on another post, but you need to let go of the idea that a visual art such as photography for the intent of art, is about ideas. As a visual art, it is open to interpretation of the viewer and if you are trying to communicate an idea you will ultimately fail. 


In reference to the Atget photograph:

This is a very deep photograph, it compels the viewer to wander throughout the photograph in search of something new, a perfect example of a photograph that asks a lot from its viewer and has an innate complexity. The only issue I have is the title, it is to specific for a photograph that is about so much more. 

Much of how a photograph is seen is dependent on the photographers vision and the viewers impression. Without experience on either side of the photographer to have a deep vision, that goes beyond a pretty picture, pretty defined having value on the surface only, and experience on the side of the viewer who has not developed enough ability or depth in there own seeing, how the photograph is viewed can often be a mismatch. The difference is in the seeing of either and independent of subject matter.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 26, 2005)

ok, i need to get some coffee before i start to read this... 
of course, there is no coffee in the house. well, that leaves me to choose between milk and a fine assortment of alcoholic drinks. i'll do the bad thing. milk, it is

all right, let's debate

first, about the history, i have seen from experience that what you learn from a teacher is invaluably better than what you learn by yourself. the learning is easier and fits better in. as for books i usually get them from the british council but they don't really have that many really worth it books, only a few (from about 20-30 just 5-6 are really interesting). i'll search for those books too but i doubt i'll find them...  

i know that photography teaches you how to see, or is it the other way around?  well they're interlinked, so if you learn how to see life, you learn how to make photos.

hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't...

when i go out loaded with cameras and junk i always have a little problem: i sense the scenes, i can even touvch them in my mind, but i can't unlock them. it's as if i went blind all of a sudden when i know i want to takde the photos. you're right too about ignoring the photograpphy and concentrating on the rest but if i do that i'll really end up with no photos  ever 

i know that photography is one of the finer arts and like any art it must be made with real liife and real soul, but i just can't seem to enjoy life in the past year. it's all just gray to me. even in the best of times something is missing. and that just doesn't let me see what i should. i just go out there and i start to piece up a puzzle but it only reveals itself when i'm doing something else with no intention of shooting. and then it goes away again... a photographer's block i'd say, but it lasts for quite some time now...


----------



## eydryan (Sep 26, 2005)

cool quote of the day :



> There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures.
> - James Thurber


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 26, 2005)

Well, eydryan, I wish you the best of luck, sincerely.  Perhaps the best thing for now is to just observe, but that is for you to decide.  

"hehe, fine art photography. now that's a goal. but who knows what they really want? i know i don't..."

It is not about what anyone else wants beside yourself, don't worry about what others think of your photography, trust and confide in your mentors and a few close peers to aid in your growth, but worry little about what the general public wants.  

Yes, it does help to learn from a talented teacher whether it be history or technical side of things.  Although, all to often I see stundents emerging from the art schools, trying too hard, trying too hard to be different from everyone else and not following what comes naturally to them and invariably ignoring their best work.  So, teachers who "get it" are of a rarity to me.  

I know you don't know me for a hole in the wall, but I would be willing help you get some books if want.

I wish you the best of luck in your endevours.
JC


----------



## eydryan (Sep 26, 2005)

i honestly thank you a lot for your support and for you lessons i really do, they are inspiring to me, i have seen today that if you do not search for a theme it comes to you naturally...

and you're right about observing, maybe not acting can generate knowledge. in photography as well as in real life.i've never really looked at it like this before... i have always thought that in order to achieve something you must actively make it happen, but you can also make it come your way... confusing, but i get the hang of it, very nice

oh and that's one more thing, i don't have mentors, never in my life have i had a role model or such since i can remember. and my close peers don't really do it for me, it's maybe because i am dissatissfied with my friends that i have this attitude towards everything. i'm a boat without a paddle... eh, but that's just my melancholy speaking, i'm usually a very cheery and fun guy... oh, well. 

teachers often present their side of the story i admit, but it is better to hear that side and understand it than take your side and not understand anything. the problem with students ius that they are very eager to fulfill their education that they forget what art is about... may be.

i admit i do not know you and you might just be a total psychopath  but it is in the nature of my people to trust in strangers. any stranger is just a friend you haven't discovered...  because no one will come from somewhere just to steal from you. so they mean well. i for one do not like meeting new people but once i do i make friends with them instantly. it may be my biggest flaw: having many friends, i cannot really get attached to any. but enough about me!  

about the books, well right now i've just borrowed what i could find off the british council mainly "Complete Idiot's Guide to Photography like a pro", "Photo retouching with adobe photoshop" and "digital photography hacks". and believe me, they were quite the best in there so... i hope next month's book will be better (they buy one of these every month). right now i'm not going into any bookshops because i;m low on cash and my girlfriend's birthday is this week so i'll just leave it for another time. but when i get some cash, thank you for your very kind offer, i'll speak to you and maybe you can buy me one from there and i'll mail you the money  ok? 

so thank you again for all you've done and for wishing me luck, i seem to have some these days  

ok, now let's see what the rest of my mailbox contains


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 26, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> when i am on the street mainly doing nothing without my camera i see all kinds of brilliant shots, however when i take the camera it all fades away



When you don't have your camera your mind's eye is not limited by reality.  You combine the visual aspects of the scene with many other senses and feelings; a camera merely records the visual aspects of the scene.  One of the first things any visual artist must learn is see what is actually there, instead of seeing what you think is there.  Reality often doesn't live up to our imagination.

To create an image that captures not only what is there visually, but also what you felt, you must pre-visualize your finished photograph.  Very often the final image may not be completely accurate with reality, so you must be familiar with all the steps between seeing the scene and creating a final print (or whatever your intended output is).  This way you can alter the image to  provide the viewer with the feelings you felt that made you want to take the photograph in the first place.

Ansel Adams is often credited with the concept of pre-visualization.  I have to believe it's too basic of a concept to be truely any one person's creation, but his books are a good resource.  Particularly check out "The Making of 40 Photographs".  It's 40 photos, and his thoughts about creating them.  Here are a bunch of Ansel Adams quotes ( from www.photoquotes.com ) to inspire you.

"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular . . . sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice."

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without."

"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."   

"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."


----------



## eydryan (Sep 27, 2005)

that could be one thing, but it's different, i actually see frames when i don't have the camera. i see angles, exposures everything comes naturally, but when i've got the camera it all freezes. 

i've just downloaded the work of the masters off the lan and they're quite impressive, especially for those days. i haven't quite had time to see it all, it's quite a lot. ansel adams for example, for 1930 made some extraordinary landscapes, even for today...

what he says in those quotes is the point of view as a master, a man who has so much experience that to him things just click into place with no or little effort...


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 27, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> what he says in those quotes is the point of view as a master, a man who has so much experience that to him things just click into place with no or little effort...



Before he was a master photographer, Ansel Adams enjoyed the great outdoors:  hiking, camping, etc...  He brought along the standard point-n-shoot of the day to record the majestic scenes he was seeing, but when he got the pics back they were crappy snapshots, not at all conveying the intense emotions he wanted to convey.  So began his passion for photography.    

No matter how good you get, it is unlikely that you will make great photos "with no or little effort".  The difference between master and novice is rarely talent as much as it is effort.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 27, 2005)

it is a point of view, and a correct one.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 27, 2005)

It escapes me at the moment where I read or heard this, but later in life Ansel admitted somewhat that previsualiztion to the extent of seeing the final print was a bit of an over statement.  

I would personally hate to be able to visualize the final print, sure I have a good idea of how things will be recorded on film, but I never know what I truely have until I print the negatives.  Afterall, if you could see the final print, what would be the point in taking the photograph?  To me that would be boring.

Also, I forgot to ask eydryan, what rules you were refering to in the subject of your first post?  I mentioned being aware of them in one of my responses, but what I consider rules are most likely completley different than most would.  I speak in terms of perspective control, understanding exposure more of the technical... and nothing to do with suposed rules of composition.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 27, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> To me that would be boring.



To me it is fascinating, almost like magic.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 28, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> To me it is fascinating, almost like magic.


 
I ask this out of curiosity:

Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 28, 2005)

To prove that you can do it.
You see a scene, you pre-visualise it and then do the magic. When it turns out just as you saw it in your mind you get a kick that is better than sex.

And before you ask, you are proving it to yourself.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 28, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> I ask this out of curiosity:
> 
> Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.



What I find fascinating is how I can be inspired by a scene, and then recreate those feelings in a print.  As a darkroom geek, I feel the process of photography doesn't stop with the release of the shutter.  In my experience if I just raise the camera to my eye and click the button the photo will end up less than what I wanted.  It will usually look like what I describe as a snapshot.  I have learned through using the camera that what I see in my mind is not always how things really look.  Anybody can go and view the scene I saw; what I am trying to create is a way that they can see what I saw and what I felt when I looked upon the scene.

Random photography can be fun, and even inspire new ideas, but basically it's doodling.  There's nothing wrong with doodling, but it tends not to lead to a final product.  That's fine, not everything has to end up as a final product.  

I'm never 100% sure of how the final print is going to turn out, but with my knowledge and skill I can visualize something close.  Whether my goal is to create a print that is accurate to reality, completely different than reality, or something in between, I use previsualization to develop a plan rather than snapping away, and hoping for the best.  Not all subjects and situations allow for or require complete previsualization, but I use my tools and knowledge to try my best with the time I have.  Some subjects have a limited time I will be allowed to get the shot I want (fast moving storm clouds, children, atheletes, etc...); if I've got to make the shot count, a plan of action (previsualization) gives me a much better chance of getting what I want.

When a photog chooses to use a large aperture to simplify the background that is previsualization.  When they use a slow shutter speed to show motion, or  use a red #25 filter with BW film (or know they are going to copy the red channel on PS), or when they intentionally overexpose the film, and then reduce development time to lower contrast, that is previsualization.  Combining all these examples and more is previsualization.

For me the sense of discovery does not occur within the photographic processes between exposure and print.  It occurs before I press the shutter release as I wander the world looking with my eyes and my mind.  The camera and the darkroom or computer are just tools that help me share this with others.

For all that I think previsualization is an important consideration for successful photography, I agree that there are "different strokes for different folks", and everyone needs to find the methods that work for them.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 28, 2005)

I guess our visions are quite different, but I should not be surprised, vision is as unique as a finger print.  For me it is nothing technical in mind when photographing, and certiainly nothing in the sense of previsulization as you folks describe.  This does not mean I have not mastered the technical aspects.  Without the mastery one is not able to free themselves of the confinds of the technical to successfully communicate thier vision.

Interesting none the less.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 30, 2005)

first of all i must thank you all, you have been an inapiration and one that got be back onto my own inspiration. with your words in my head, i packed the akkus in the digital compact and went out and the shots came more naturally. i have already edited most of my first shoot (which is so-so) and haven't quite started to edit this one.when i post any of them i'll let you know here, first one in about 1hour probably second in a few days. 

in other news, i see that in the 2 days i've been missing you have quite discussed about other stuff as well so i'll get into that right away, as well as it fits very well in jc's question. first, about the rules. there are these guidelines which i have already implemented in my software  which assist you in making a photograph. also some guidelines about exposure. and of course the very bad no-no.s which i believe are the most useful. now they are to be respected in 99% of the cases and here comes the question: what is previsualising and what is respecting normal exposure and other rules? i for one have a style that (with the compact at least) i see a frame in my head, i don't know what it is, but the brain says that i should take the shot. i scan quickly through rulesets (subconciousely) and if i find any i think if it really is necessary and then just take the shot. it all happens in 5 seconds, mainly the time it takes me to say if the shot is worth taking or not. and then i take it, with all pre-thought. however i cannot say that is actual previsualising of the shot, sometimes it's ok otherwise it is a fault in my judging and/or technique. that of course does not happen with film. there i have a considerably higher success rate. no film scanner though  so the films just keep on piling. that goes very well with the fact that i have decided not to scan them at a guy anymore. it costs too damn much and they are archived for the present being at least till christmas when one shall be acquired  

and about a pic lookin just like you wanted it to be when you shot it, well that is usually 9/10 digital editing  i mean, it is impossible most of the time to capture exactly what our eyes see. so previsualising in my oppinion is techically possible only to people with bad eyesight 

ok, i'll talk some more after i post those pics.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 30, 2005)

Pre-visualisation is actually learning to see how the film 'sees'.
The human eye can accomodate a very wide exposure range (in excess of 1:2,000 at any given time) whereas film is quite limited.
If it is to be reproduced in a magazine the useful exposure range of transparency film (the difference between white and black) is approximately 2-3 stops (1:4 and 1:8 ).
The 'art' of previsualisation is mostly just a matter of working out which parts of the shot will be light and which dark. In the studio this means that you light for the film, not for your eyes.
Black and white is a little more complicated. You have a bigger exposure range (typically 7 stops) but you have to work out what tonal value particular colours will come out. A lot of the skill comes with familiarity. The more pictures you take the better you get.
It is possible to buy filters - called density viewers - that you look through and they approximate the exposure range of the film you are using. They are quite expensive though and of only limited usefulness.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 30, 2005)

ok, now that link i'd been yappin about: www.citybiking.blogspot.com

now, some are not that good but personally i think they are an improvement  feel free to disagree, i have better ones on the way so these ones are somehow unimportant... 

oh, and i especially like the effect on this one. well, previsualise this! http://photos1.blogger.com/img/11/3781/1024/City%20Biking%20069.jpg


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 30, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> ...what is respecting normal exposure and other rules?


 
Each photograph could very well call for a different exposure and most often does, so stating there is a "normal exposure" is a bit misleading.  Other rules?  I have no idea what they might be or what your software considers rules, so hard to comment on that one.

I look at your photographs online, there are two labled 66, but the one with the smoke stacks, is right on and well seen. Actually, most appear quite nice, keep doing what your doing, you are on the right track.   I can't and won't comment other than that, as I rarely if ever anymore participate in online critiques, only in those that I can see the work in person.

_"The more pictures you take the better you get."_

I don't think this is the case.  The simple act of just taking photographs without growth, awareness, understanding, vision, etc. will only yield the same results time after time. 

If this were true everyone who owned a camera would be a "photograher."

Forget were this loose variation of the quote comes from:

What are you when you just bought a piano? 
Someone who owns a piano.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 30, 2005)

I'll try to give an example of how I might previsualize a scene.

I'm out wandering around in the countryside with my Speed Graphic and film holders loaded with BW film, and I come upon a gnarly, old tree.  About 15' from the tree is a boulder with some interesting grasses around it.  I decide that I would like to create a composition that includes both.  I begin to previsulaize how the final print is going to look.

First I have to come up with the composition.  I can randomly choose a focal length, and wander around looking through the viewfinder until the subjects fit within the composition.  Possibly they won't do it like I want, so I randomly pick another focal length and try again.  Or I can use my knowledge of how distance to subject affects perspective, and how focal length affects the angle of view and the size relationship of subjects at different distances from the camera, and make an educated guess as to what focal length I want, and where I should stand.  I still have to look through the viewfinder to make sure I'm right, and make corrections if I'm wrong.  Both methods can be previsualization, the second method just takes less time (hopefully).  In this case I'll choose something fairly wide angle, because I want to put the boulder in the foreground, and I still want all of the tree showing in the background.

Now I have to consider depth of field.  I usually follow the traditional school of thought with landscapes that I want as much as possible in focus, so I know to achieve that I'll need a small aperture (my Super Speed Graphic has some front movements, so I can also use this to affect DOF).  I'm not sure that my eye sees it this way, but I can imagine what this will look like as a print.  My eye sees everything it's directly looking at as pretty sharp.  I know to achieve maximum sharpness in the print I will need to use a tripod, and cable release ( and mirror lock-up if I were using a SLR ).  Because I'm using the smallest aperture, I know my shutter speed is going to be slow, so if I don't want the movement of the grasses in the wind to show in the print, I'll need to wait for a break in the breeze.  

Next I study the tones.  There are some nice clouds in the sky, and when I previsualize the print I see a medium gray sky, with bright white clouds.  I know that if I shoot this scene straight, I'll get a very, very light sky, and the clouds will hardly show, because the sky is very bright, and BW film tends to overexpose blue.  To deal with this I could use a red filter.  That would make the blue sky very dark, but it would also darken the green leaves.  An orange filter would lessen these effects, or I could use a yellow-green filter, which should help darken the sky as well as lightening the green foliage somewhat.  Maybe I'll take a shot with both the orange filter and a shot with the yellow-green filter, because my previsualization isn't perfect, and later I'll want both options.  Because I'm using a hand held meter I need to consider the effects of the filters on my exposure.  I'll need to overexpose a stop or so to compensate for the light blocked by the filter.

Comparing the detail in the bright clouds with the detail of the tree bark in shadow my meter says they are 7 stops apart.  I know that my printing paper can only handle 5 stops and still get the full detail.  To compress the tonal range into something that will print the way I want it I need to overexpose by 2 stops, and later I will adjust my development time to under-develop by 2 stops (how much time this is depends on many things, so each photog needs to do personal testing).

Now I can take the shot, and get reasonably close to what I imagined (previsualized).  This may read as complicated and time consuming, but because I've been doing it this way for years, it's fairly intuitive these days, and it all happens in less time than it took you to read this.  I'll spend most of my time waiting for the grasses to sit still.  

Previsualization is just looking ahead, and thinking about the photograph you want to take.  Choosing color film because you know you want a color print is previsualization.  You can try and previsualize as much as possible about the photograph, or just certain aspects.  It's not really as complicated as it sounds.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 30, 2005)

the thing i call normal exposure is the exposure that the automatic mode (or you but mainly very close to the automatic prediction) has selected for that frame. the normal exposure is the variable of all the settings so the shot will not be overexposed nor underexposed of course unless purpousefully desired. the normal exposure  other rules? there are hundreds at least. but many i haven't quite learned by name they just are there after reading all those books...  it is hard to define them, it is something like a photographer's common sense but in a technical sense. 

i'm glad you like them, it is exactly that "observing" that you were talking about and it really inspired me to change my going-out style and i thank you for it. 

now, about the many-picture-taking thing; i presume that everyone who takes photos is a person interested in perfecting himself in the field of photography. and if he uses his imagination and learns the technical ropes of the craft i believe that his photos will get better the more he takes them. because he stumbles upon frequent mistakes. and that helps him learn more. and so on. experience is only gained by practice. otherwise, it's useless. growth comes from within. mastery must be supported. like blind people who play starcraft (there are some who are quite good at it). given the necessary practice, their game grows and evolves. 

the quote is nice and funny. and it characterises the people who take vacation shots. but those people usually don't bother to visit such forums. it is only the true learner who wants it so badly that he searches constantly for mroe knowledge. the snapshot and therefore unevolving type gets bored way before he can actually learn very much.


----------



## eydryan (Sep 30, 2005)

ksmattfish there is a difference in taking a shot of a tree and composing an orchestra of tones where it may not exist. the processes you describe are also made by the brain in its simplist judging of pretty and not so pretty. and i personally believe that at least until a point it does the job a hell of a lot better. it sees the scene and you just say "am i gonna do this?" and it genreates all possible scenarios, it also chooses and you're just left with the techincal operation of the camera. but otherwise, a picture of a tree is taken quite the same.

and let's ponder a bit about what it means to take a photo. it means to sit, think then shoot. everybody previsualises something, but it's not necesarilly the same as you thought because of the tooth fairy.  she comes and switches the slides. or a satellite crashes into the tree when you shoot it. you cannot predict all. and you shouldn't. photos lose their mystery like that. and by getting too technical you lose the emotional side. 

fmpov at least that is what i see.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 30, 2005)

Excellent eydryan! I think you are are very much on the right track, just keep at it.  It is enjoyable to talk about these things, but so much more satisfying to photograph with those thoughts in mind.  You are correct that the brain does make judements, pretty as you stated, but to be able to move beyond the pretty to beauty, beauty refelects everything behind the pretty, to have a vision that sees and reveals the deep is most satisfying to photographer and viewer.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 30, 2005)

Do what you like, and if it works for you then great.  

Does photography/art have to be pretty and beautiful?


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 30, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> the thing i call normal exposure is the exposure that the automatic mode (or you but mainly very close to the automatic prediction) has selected for that frame. the normal exposure is the variable of all the settings so the shot will not be overexposed nor underexposed of course unless purpousefully desired. the normal exposure  other rules? there are hundreds at least.



If you point your camera at a black cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.  

If you point your camera at a white cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.

If you point your camera at a gray cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.

There really aren't many "rules" about exposure, other than light meters measure for middle gray.  They are very simple devices.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 1, 2005)

fmpov photography has to be beautiful or/and to have meaning. because that is what we want to make, tell the world what it's missing out, or attract its attention towards an interesing topic. if it's not beautiful it is because it is of something ugly and it has a powerful meaning or because it is a twisted view of something and that i don't quite like. 

but do not take the beautiful i said as pretty. i was judgding more along the lines of good/bad shot. that is what the brain does.

and i quite rely on my automatic meter and it hardly ever fails. and if the cat is on an 18% gray background  the exposure will be correct. and if all fails, spot metering does not... well, it's a weird subject, wether there is a normal exposure but i think there is.

cheers!  i can't wait to edit those pics from the past three days, there are a few which i think are very sweet  and by that i mean kick-ass dude  now i've gotta go, the year is due to start in about an hour at my university and i think i've gotta be there... maybe take some shots


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 1, 2005)

this thread looks like fun.  i'm too busy to read through all of it though. about that whole rules thing...the first thing that popped into my mind is that there are in fact no rules of course, just strong suggestions or guidelines, and the only real way to go outside of those guidelines is to know what the guidelines are and why you are ignoring them.  otherwise you end up with-plain and simple-a bad photo.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 1, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Does photography/art have to be pretty and beautiful?


To quote Susan Sontag 'most people think that a beautiful picture is a picture of something beautiful'.

Pictures, either by accident or design, actually say something about the photographer and the way they view the world.
Most people viewing a picture project their own opinions and world view onto it.
The 'art' of being a photographer is to more or less direct the viewer to see what you want them to. Pre-visualisation is one of the tools that help you to do it.


----------



## JC1220 (Oct 1, 2005)

When I speak of beauty, it is more than just a representation of something beautiful. Subject mater pretty or not does not determine deep beauty nor whether or not it is a "pretty" picture. Any subject matter may be pretty or beautiful, either, niether or both and the difference has to do with the seeing of the photographer, not the subject matter.

To quote a good friend of mine:
" To make a pretty picture is to see only the surface of the subject matter, and be relatively unconscious of the beautiful. "



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Most people viewing a picture project their own opinions and world view onto it. The 'art' of being a photographer is to more or less direct the viewer to see what you want them to.


 
The viewer has their own unique vision and is dependent on how well evolved that vision is. Which is one reason I have no interest in directing a viewer, the photograph will "speak" to them as they see it regardless of my seeing. Nor does it come in mind when making a photograph as I do not photograph for others. I photograph for myself. The bonus of that journey is that someone may enjoy the photograph.



			
				thebeginning said:
			
		

> ...in fact no rules of course, just strong suggestions or guidelines,...


 
Are not strong suggestions, rules more or less? While it is important to understand the technical, which is not required to see photographically, when it comes to so called rules of composition, there are none, none what so ever, none to follow or not follow. Techique can be taught how to compose should not be.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 1, 2005)

this is all just idle chit-chat about rules and guidelines and all. in reality there are rules and they must be obeyed. even if there are only two of them all of us obey them in taking a photo. even if the rules are basic ones such as your subject must be in the frame in order for it to enter the shot.  they're rules and we obey them. most of them subconciousely (i never know if that's the right form) but they are there and we repect them.

a picture indeed is a world of content and the point of view is in itself a key which opens a different door every time.


----------



## jadin (Oct 1, 2005)

Rather than talk about open-mindedness in viewing photography, I wrote about open-mindedness in life in general. I also went way overboard.

*How to open your mind.
An essay by Jadin.*

This... 
This... 
This is going to be a hard essay...

_(post writing - meeting my expectations of this essay I failed miserably. this is what's left of it...)_

Imagine a child born in a bubble. As he grows the bubble grows with him. It protects him from possible dangers, negative influence, etc. The only problem is he can't see anything outside of his bubble. Some children spend their whole lives living in the bubble, and most are quite happy without ever knowing of it's exsistence. (Ignorance is bliss)

Some children, however, can see the bubble. They look at it. They probe at it. They see how it stetches when they poke it. They see what it does and what it's capable of. And when they are ready, they decide they want to see outside of their bubble. The bubble bursts.

Instantly you are overwhelmed by new thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions. It's a whole new point of view. You run around taking in as much as you can of this whole new world you never knew exsisted before. You see people in bubbles everywhere. They walk around, go to their jobs, live their lifes all in the comfort of not knowing they are trapped inside a bubble. Trying to talk to them about this whole new experience, they look at you like you're crazy and think nothing more of it. You find talking with them can be unfulfilling, you don't relate as well as you used to.

But as you look deeper you also see other people running around in this new space bubble free. With those you discover you can relate to them on a whole new level. They understand when you talk about your new ideas, and have some of their own that make you think, "Woah! I never would've thought of that!".

Once freed you realize that you will live life with a greater variety of emotions. You experience happier highs and sadder lows. You can't relate to your old friends the way you once could. Sometimes you wish you were still in the bubble, but you can never return, It's gone. Oh, you can close your eyes, pretend, and make it real, but it's not the same. The very knowledge that it's there makes it useless to you.

Years later you are living your life and you slowly realize the space you've been living in is actually just another bubble, much larger than the first, surrounding you. But now you know how it works. Do you run at it with scissors? Or live in the bliss of never knowing what's on the other side. Will you regret popping this one? How many more bubbles will there be? Only one way to find out...

----------

Being open-minded is a never-ending process. Simply because the layers aren't linear. Being open-minded about sex, for example, will not make you open-minded about art, and vice versa. Because of this, noone can walk you through it. You have to open your mind as each opportunity arises. Then you will be an open-minded individual (forever a work in progress). The biggest mistake you can make is assume that you're open-minded. Doing so closes your mind to the other layers you haven't even discovered yet. Only after you've opened your mind do you realize it was previously closed.

The more I think about this, the more I realize you can't teach it. Simply because it usually requires an epiphany usually from a life-altering experience. A close call with death. A new baby. A mid-life crisis. Etc. I've been trying to think of ways to help the process along, the only way I've thought of is catharsis. I found this definition I rather like...



> Catharsis is a form of emotional cleansing first defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It originally referred to the sensation that would ideally overcome an audience upon finishing a tragedy. The fact that there existed those who could suffer a worse fate than them was to them a relief, they felt ekstasis (literally, astonishment), from which the modern word ecstasy is derived. Their spirits are refreshed through having greater appreciation for life.



Basically you can watch a movie or read a book and feel as though you've had a life-altering experience (in many ways you have). During that ecstasy is the perfect time to meditate not only on what you just saw, but on your own life.

Here is some things you can check out that changed who I am today.

Films:
- Fight Club (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- American Beauty (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- Amelie (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- American History X (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- I <3 Huckabees (makes you think about your life - for whatever reason wasn't cathartic for me)
- Baraka (cathartic)
- Life is Beautiful (cathartic)
- Twelve Monkeys (cathartic)
- Donnie Darko (cathartic)
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (cathartic)
- Lost in Translation (cathartic)
- Hero (cathartic)
- The Matrix (cathartic)
- Pi (cathartic)
- Requim for a Dream (cathartic)
- Serendipity (cathartic)
- Shawshank Redemption (cathartic)
- Fallen (cathartic)
- Se7en (cathartic)

Books
- Princess Bride (yes the book, not the movie, movie was good, but the book is exponentially better)
- Siddhartha (cathartic + makes you think about your life)
- The Old Man and the Sea (cathartic)
- Wow. I don't read enough, I can't remember any others right now.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, just ones that moved me to re-think how I think 

Post what's changed your life (hopefully for the better) and I'll add them to the list.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 1, 2005)

Well put! :thumbup: 

There are people I'd like to show your essay too... but... there's just no point - they either get it already or they'll just read it and think they get it but won't.  I wander if I get it really. 

As you say, epiphanies are the only way and can be introduced to people;  But it's hard work.

It's a beautiful thing when you're trying to open someones eyes on a subject and you suddenly realise that it's your own eyes that have been shut.


----------



## jadin (Oct 1, 2005)

As far as pre-visualization goes, I find that what I see is rarely what I get out of my photos. Most of the time the photos are *way* better than what I saw with my eye. It never ceases to impress me. (I think I like my art a little too much at times. I'm definately my own biggest fan) :sillysmi:


----------



## eydryan (Oct 1, 2005)

your essay (and most people don't realise this) is a mixture of philosophies. matrix meets MiB meets vanilla sky. it is what my buddhist friend keeps on preaching about. it is the thing nature is telling us when it shows us its beauty. it's a bit of solipsism and a bit of descartes. you should read nietzsche. his way of opening your mind is at least to me unparalleled. for opening your mind is realising that it is not only you who are trapped in the bubble but the bubble itself is trapped by you, t cannot move outside without taking you. also, once one bubble is burst, another is formed. and the one thing that is indeed constant is cause creates effect. causality. you must look at the problem from an infinite point of view. what does another in a bubble see you like, or what kind of bubbles are there, and can you really know that the bubble is no more, or is it just an impression as another layer just adds up on top of the old? funny thing is, you can never know. you can never be sure of anything (descartes about sensory perception) and therefore you cannot know what opening your eyes is. because you don't really know what they are. define your eyes without the use of your senses. you can't. they are just a convention. everybody says they are up in our head and we see with them. but how can you be sure? maybe it's just a hoax set up for you inside the bubble (solipsism). so you see opening you eyes is only a matter of speaking, for they are forever either closed or open, one can never know, but they do change perspective. as eistein said, everything is relative...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> you can never be sure of anything (descartes about sensory perception)


A misconception regarding Descartes is that he cast doubt on 'reality' or what we perceive. What he actually did was go back to first principles - by doubting everything that admitted of doubt and seeing what was left: what was indubitable (intrinsically incapable of being doubted).
Thus he came up with _cogito, ergo sum_ (I am thinking, therefore I exist) and used that as a basis to work out what else exists.
His argument for the existence of 'reality' goes: Whilst I can doubt that objects exist and that I have a body, I cannot doubt that I am having _experiences_ as if such objects were there. Therefore something must be producing these experiences. That _something_ must exist and correspond to the experiences I have. Viola!
He also used this argument to prove the existence of God.
In essence Descartes was trying to prove that things existed which had a correlation to our experiences and therefore you _could_ trust your senses.
You must remember that Descartes was primarily a Scientist and Mathematician*. He needed to be able to trust his senses.

As for Einstein, what he meant was: how things appear to behave is determined by the position of the observed _relative_ to the position of the observer.


*He was the inventor of Cartesian Co-ordinates.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 1, 2005)

hmm, well that could be. i really need to actually read descartes. unfortunatelly he was one of those i never had the time for. but that is what i had heard in an essay about his principles. and that is what i heard. and also the fact that his famous quote was actually in two of his books and only mentioned the idea but not in those exact words. so i cannot actually confirm that yet but i'll be on it asap 

and einstein is quite the same thing, you refrence to the applied principles not the actual ones. what you say is the applied physics principle. but he also wrote a book which i borrowed from the goethe institut and in it there was a more phylosophical approach to the matter(it's called "the theory of relativity", kinda figures  ). as in what i said, the relativity of all objects. different points of view and everything leads to a different perception. 

but of course, it is all a matter of interpreting what was written. therefore, our views upon the work itself may be completely different because of our different age, background, nationality, favourite football team, sock size and everything.


----------



## jadin (Oct 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> your essay (and most people don't realise this) is a mixture of philosophies.



Ahh see, you're a learned man. Truth is I've never been to college, and never read any philosophy, quite literally. Oh I might've picked up a hint or two along the way from the films I watch, but that can't be much. I always had this idea that if I read other people's philosophies it would change my own. Enough so that my philosophies wouldn't be my own, only my interpretation of someone else's. As a creative person I like to do my own thing, even if it's reinventing the wheel. What is in that essay is my own philosiphies.

[the bubble stuff was from my website a few years ago, original rougher version.]


I've never cared for the "you can never be sure of anything" stuff. But then I'm a firm believer that we were created by a God who knew what he was doing. I believe reality exsists, regardless if are there to perceive it.* Our sensory perception affects our brain, our thinking, but not reality itself. For example, a schizophrenic or someone tripping on drugs may see things that don't exsist in reality, but they don't exsist anywhere besides their own mind. You and I will certainly never see them.


*just in case anyone brings it up, while the simple fact of our viewing atoms [i think it was atoms, something molecular anyway] actually changes the way they behave, doesn't change my belief. The atom is still an atom, it doesn't stop exsisting, or turns into something outrageous like a banana [for lack of a better 'something outrageous']


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 1, 2005)

Descartes explains most of this in his _Discourse on Method_ and in his _Meditations_. And he would have frowned on you drawing conclusions from 'knowledge' derived at second hand.
As for Einstein, he was talking and thinking about the physical world and how to describe it in Mathematical terms. In particular he was trying to produce a theory that explained all phenomena in the Universe.
As a by-product it also explains differences in observations between different observers, but only if those observers are in different places. Einstein would have argued that two observers standing in the same place observing the same phenomenon would see exactly the same thing. This is a cornerstone of Scientific principle.
What you are doing is interpreting things to suit yourself.

As for putting different interpretations on things, that is always possible but some interpretations must be more accurate than others. A good indication as to whether you are on the right tracks is to compare your interpretation with the majority view.
And to be prepared to accept that you may have got it wrong.


----------



## danalec99 (Oct 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> in reality there are rules and they must be obeyed.


What are they, if I may ask?


----------



## eydryan (Oct 1, 2005)

i do accept that. however you see what you say about what einstein said is impossible by the first rule of logics: "two objects can never be absolutely identical because they do not occupy the same time and space". so there can never be those two observers in the same place, can they. 

i must however bow down and admit arrogance. you have more knowledge here and as good as my logic may be a conversation would give you the upper hand. so i back down slowly, but i shall resume this as soon as i can...

however, about interpreting things, isn't that what argumentation is all about? bending the truth... pulling your listener in the direction you want him... and then playing out his weaknesses in order to reveal the soft spot. and i personally believe this is everyday life, even when you buy coffee from a shop or when you ask a person a question. only time you admit defeat is when the doors are locked in front of you or when you feel a wall coming up. 

general interpretations i find are boring. that is why i do not like philosophy as a science. it tries to make everything clear when everything is not. and it is all inside us. all of this knowledge is right down there. all that has ever been said in this field can be reproduced by a handful of people who are brilliant enough to see them.

and i am a learned man, well boy would be more appropriate, but only from one point of view. somewhere along the line i lost touch with my abilities and now all i have are speculations and weaseling. just like a drop of water i hit nothing but walls and instead of tearing them down i search the crack and drip through it. going through life like a mole. blind. 

the reason i have read philosophy was a coincidence, the actual topic presented itself as no interest to me but i grabbed hold of aphorisms(is that the translation?) by nietzsche. and i loved it. so i read more, heideger, kant, even that bit by einstein, and such until one day i just got bored. and quite started forgetting. As phillip k dick said "Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night." and it's mainly night here. 

the reason i cling to these is well foolish pride would be one. as a young person i tend to do stupid things for unimportant reasons. alpha male stuff especially. demonstrating superiority without actually having it. a bluff not many would call. but of course there are those who do and well they are the true teachers. they are the real scholars. 

i must brag here but i am one who sees things in life clearly. that is why i am so sad and undecided. i see the good things always have a catch. they always drag you down. take the most obvious example: money. it happened to me once as i fell asleep on a sidewalk (no,i wasn't drunk) and it was the best sleep i ever had. i mean money and material possesions are all just drugs, short-term fixes for people who are constantly frustrated that they cannot reach total happiness. and they don't realise that joy without pain is nothing. or that life no matter how small is just as important. i found this "school of life" in buddhist writings and especially in the legend of krishna. 

jadin, i believe you will like this as it resembles your philosophy somehow. the writer is a zen master from new york i believe but he has some points worth checking out: www.organelle.org my request is that you hold this page to yourself as it is quite a sanctus and people who do not wish to learn such things and are ignorant may damage its point and well mainly ask stupid questions.

i for one hate this place this world. it is in my veins that i hate every human in this world and given the choice no matter how radical it sounds i would kill them all. now this is no video game rush but more along the lines of logics. in life you are alone. all people want to either get rid of you, use you or make you suffer. therefore you realise that they are all out to get you. if there is nothing in it for them they leave. and i have such hatrid for this place which does not see its corruption and its flaw. for it is a system that all feel is wrong but no one manages to change it. for in order to change there is need for one man. and then there is need for all men to do the same. and that is simply not possible in this style of education. dumming our brains in order for them to function as we want them.  what i speak of is the fact that if it ever happened to you when all of a sudden your brain responds to a question or arithemtical problem quicker and better than yuo could through your so called embettered processes.

and i honestly believe that given the "Codes" you could turn into a banana because our brain has the ability to command any cell in its composition. 

fortunatelly no one really has the time to think of all this, except perhaps schizzos. but that is another matter. i believe they should be let loose. for maybe they are what we are missing. (ever seen k-pax?) the twisted mind lets some of its secrets pour out.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> i do accept that. however you see what you say about what einstein said is impossible by the first rule of logics: "two objects can never be absolutely identical because they do not occupy the same time and space". so there can never be those two observers in the same place, can they.


Two observers can never be in exactly the same place - but this does not affect what is being observed.


			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> i do not like philosophy as a science. it tries to make everything clear when everything is not.


Philosophy is more to do with exploration. It is a means of defining our uncertainties, not our certainties. If this were not so, philosophers would not be able to question the thinking of their predecessors. 
 As for the rest, welcome to the Human race. Try reading Kafka.


----------



## jadin (Oct 1, 2005)

I hope you don't mind if I pick apart your post...



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> i do accept that. however you see what you say about what einstein said is impossible by the first rule of logics: "two objects can never be absolutely identical because they do not occupy the same time and space". so there can never be those two observers in the same place, can they.



Hertz answered this one, but I'll go the laymen route. The key is IF they were in the exact same place, they would see the exact same thing.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> i must however bow down and admit arrogance. you have more knowledge here and as good as my logic may be a conversation would give you the upper hand. so i back down slowly, but i shall resume this as soon as i can...



I find logic trumps knowledge usually. Just my opinion.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> however, about interpreting things, isn't that what argumentation is all about? bending the truth... pulling your listener in the direction you want him... and then playing out his weaknesses in order to reveal the soft spot. and i personally believe this is everyday life, even when you buy coffee from a shop or when you ask a person a question. only time you admit defeat is when the doors are locked in front of you or when you feel a wall coming up.



You don't suppose that maybe they just want to sell you your coffee? You're a half-empty guy I take it?



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> general interpretations i find are boring. that is why i do not like philosophy as a science. it tries to make everything clear when everything is not. and it is all inside us. all of this knowledge is right down there. all that has ever been said in this field can be reproduced by a handful of people who are brilliant enough to see them.



Is philosophy considered a science?? Wow, that makes no sense to me either. It seems like the complete opposite.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> and i am a learned man, well boy would be more appropriate, but only from one point of view. somewhere along the line i lost touch with my abilities and now all i have are speculations and weaseling. just like a drop of water i hit nothing but walls and instead of tearing them down i search the crack and drip through it. going through life like a mole. blind.



If you ask me (which you didn't) I'd say you didn't lose touch with your abilities, but that you lost your faith in the system that is supposed to teach you. Like you've come to a point where you realize you can learn more on your own.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> i must brag here but i am one who sees things in life clearly. that is why i am so sad and undecided. i see the good things always have a catch. they always drag you down. take the most obvious example: money. it happened to me once as i fell asleep on a sidewalk (no,i wasn't drunk) and it was the best sleep i ever had. i mean money and material possesions are all just drugs, short-term fixes for people who are constantly frustrated that they cannot reach total happiness. and they don't realise that joy without pain is nothing. or that life no matter how small is just as important. i found this "school of life" in buddhist writings and especially in the legend of krishna.



You are exactly right about money etc. But I wonder why you consider it a "good thing". I agree about life at any size is important. Not because I think they will reincarnate as something else in their next life, but because I believe they have a right to exsist. Ten-fold when you consider the fact that no animal destroys it's environment the way humans do.




			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> jadin, i believe you will like this as it resembles your philosophy somehow. the writer is a zen master from new york i believe but he has some points worth checking out: www.organelle.org my request is that you hold this page to yourself as it is quite a sanctus and people who do not wish to learn such things and are ignorant may damage its point and well mainly ask stupid questions.



I'll check it out. I had a bad experience with a zen master once. I hope it's not him!! 



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> in life you are alone. all people want to either get rid of you, use you or make you suffer. therefore you realise that they are all out to get you. if there is nothing in it for them they leave. and i have such hatrid for this place which does not see its corruption and its flaw.... and that is simply not possible in this style of education. dumming our brains in order for them to function as we want them.  what i speak of is the fact that if it ever happened to you when all of a sudden your brain responds to a question or arithemtical problem quicker and better than yuo could through your so called embettered processes.



I can't help but think you're seeing what you want to. Not what actually exsists. Your view of friendship is very depressing, and fortunately not true in my opinion. The people you describe are not worthy of being your friends. Find a few true friends whom you can relate to, who care about your well-being, and make you happy! Don't settle for the users and abusers, they are simply not worth your time.

Honestly, I think you need to look at yourself more than your friends. Birds of a feather, flock together. Are you the type of person who uses and abuses people to suit your needs? Are you pretending to be someone you're not to befriend them? If so, you're not helping yourself. Just look at your outlook on life because of it.

Have many aquantances, have few friends. But make the friends you do have count. I've found the opposite to be true. I've found that all humans are in nature 'good at heart'. I believe we are born with a fully functional conscious. (every civilization always comes up with the same basic laws to live by. murder for example.) It takes persistance to become something else. They slowly dull themselves to badness. These people know what's wrong but they do it anyway, even if they never admit it. I imagine a serial killer or something thinking at times, "Wow, I'm f***ing crazy!".

So as far as the world not seeing their corruption and flaws? Doubtful. I guarantee you they see it. They just don't acknowledge it's presence. They have too much to lose if they do.

And for the last statement about our brains, you have no idea how exactly right you are. When you, for example, bounce a ball against a wall and catch it, your brain is doing physics, geometry etc on the fly, fractions of a second. The same calculations on paper would take soooo much longer.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> and i honestly believe that given the "Codes" you could turn into a banana because our brain has the ability to command any cell in its composition.
> 
> fortunatelly no one really has the time to think of all this, except perhaps schizzos. but that is another matter. i believe they should be let loose. for maybe they are what we are missing. (ever seen k-pax?) the twisted mind lets some of its secrets pour out.



As far as schizzos, not a good idea. Their hallucinations can be very dark and dangerous if unchecked. With virtual reality technology they've been able to show what it's like being a schizophrenic. A quick google search found  this which gives a good idea of what it's like.

Just plain crazy people on the other hand? Hell yeah, let 'em run loose! Crazy people are so fun to hang around with. I'm totally serious, they are a blast.

Just wanted to add I'm really enjoying this thread...


----------



## eydryan (Oct 2, 2005)

> Two observers can never be in exactly the same place - but this does not affect what is being observed.


 then who is to say that they could be... 


> Philosophy is more to do with exploration. It is a means of defining our uncertainties, not our certainties. If this were not so, philosophers would not be able to question the thinking of their predecessors.
> As for the rest, welcome to the Human race. Try reading Kafka.


indeed that is what i think that philosophy is exploration towards your very self and the selves of those around us. and for the rest i can do nothing but agree... 



> You don't suppose that maybe they just want to sell you your coffee? You're a half-empty guy I take it?


i used to be a half-full guy but then again, i really don't know. now i see either the whole damned cup or none of it. extremes are pushed...


> Is philosophy considered a science?? Wow, that makes no sense to me either. It seems like the complete opposite


i can do nothing but agree with you here. and yes, it's a science in which you learn what other people said through time. it bites big time. last year i got a 6 for that and a 10 for an argumentative essay having the text in front (out of 10). so that part sucks.


> If you ask me (which you didn't) I'd say you didn't lose touch with your abilities, but that you lost your faith in the system that is supposed to teach you. Like you've come to a point where you realize you can learn more on your own.


 here you are absolutely right. i find this way of learning to be deficient and lacking the very thing that gives us superiority: our huge natural processing power. it is in my belief that the brain has the ability to work faster and easier than we conciousely can and also that we are born with knowledge. our brains are not void. our personality is but the necessary knowledge (like speech) is imprionted right therre. it is only the language selection that is concious and taught. i also believe that babies are logical machines given by the fact that they have no remorse and are excellent manipulators. but now i'm going a little overboard. 


> You are exactly right about money etc. But I wonder why you consider it a "good thing". I agree about life at any size is important. Not because I think they will reincarnate as something else in their next life, but because I believe they have a right to exsist. Ten-fold when you consider the fact that no animal destroys it's environment the way humans do.


 
oh this is a big one.  life in itself fmpov has two aspects: the spiritual and the machine. they are precious first by the already proven thing that they are incredible machines which are mostly capable of doing stuff we cannot. and like you would not like to destroy a fine car or a brilliant supercomputer they should technically be left alone. the spiritual part is not yet proven so it does not yet hold enough weight but it has of course importance exactly because it is the mystical approach. and come to think about it, humans do not destroy their environment, they change it. they destroy ballances in nature but i believe when they will be serious enough humans will replace them with others and the ballance will be lost. many men will die but mankind will never perish...



> I'll check it out. I had a bad experience with a zen master once. I hope it's not him!!


 
well it depends. if the zen master you encountered said he was a zen master and wanted to change you then he was no zen master. for one as wise does not try to change you visibly but work within you and they are usually modest men, saying they are nothing but normal people.



> I can't help but think you're seeing what you want to. Not what actually exsists. Your view of friendship is very depressing, and fortunately not true in my opinion. The people you describe are not worthy of being your friends. Find a few true friends whom you can relate to, who care about your well-being, and make you happy! Don't settle for the users and abusers, they are simply not worth your time.
> 
> Honestly, I think you need to look at yourself more than your friends. Birds of a feather, flock together. Are you the type of person who uses and abuses people to suit your needs? Are you pretending to be someone you're not to befriend them? If so, you're not helping yourself. Just look at your outlook on life because of it.
> 
> ...


my outlook on life is not that sumbre but i know of it. and all people are that sooner or later. it is blissful to be ignorant to it but i prefer to open my eyes to it. it is not that i am in a bleak condition due to that. it has been in my head for far longer than the time i started to feel bleak. it is quite true but well it's not really important. if you have to live in this world, you have to accept the rules.and about society, some see it, others don't but nothing they could do would change it. and they don't even want to because they are selfish.





> As far as schizzos, not a good idea. Their hallucinations can be very dark and dangerous if unchecked. With virtual reality technology they've been able to show what it's like being a schizophrenic. A quick google search found this which gives a good idea of what it's like.
> 
> Just plain crazy people on the other hand? Hell yeah, let 'em run loose! Crazy people are so fun to hang around with. I'm totally serious, they are a blast.


 
schizzos are well maybe some are mainly very wrong but they have in their dreams the ability to do something we cannot: change the way they perceive reality. literally. their brain has so much immagination and is so good at reproducing that that it creates a different world. however, because the sim is not normal the brain tells the user that by adding nightmare scenarios. easy as that. i have seen the presentation. it's just llike hearing you brain think, making up scenarios. it's a monitoring tool of which unfortunatelly tthey have no control over. they have a gift wrapped inside a bomb casing.
crazy people however are the milder version and well i doubt they really have any skills which would make them useful for studying. but indeed they are fun.



> Just wanted to add I'm really enjoying this thread...


yeah, it's very interesting, we should ask the admins if they let us make a pdf of this thread if it ever finishes, it would be quite interesting to give it to others to read..


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> then who is to say that they could be...


By the same token, who is to say that they can't be?


----------



## eydryan (Oct 2, 2005)

well the law of logics.  so see, mine is backed up


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> well the law of logics.  so see, mine is backed up


Not at all. You have in no way proven that two people could not be in exactly the same place at the same time. Just to give you a hint as to what you need to do - it took Bertrand Russel four pages of calculations in his _Principia Mathematica_ just to prove by logic that 2+2 = 4!
Most people have been taught that all triangles have three included angles, the sum of which is 180. But they are rarely taught that it is, in fact, possible to construct a triangle containing three 90 degree angles. It just depends upon the rules of the space you inhabit. Check out non-Euclidian geometry.
In a multi-dimensional universe (which most scientists now accept we inhabit) it is entirely possible to have two (or more) observers occupying exactly the same space at the same time - they would just be in different dimensions (at 90 degrees to each other).
All this is mere hair-splitting. What is in question is what is being observed, to get back to your original point.
We all see pretty much the same thing and in the same way, or at least close enough for us to agree, when we are in proximity. If that were not the case then Science - and indeed the rest of life - would be impossible.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 2, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> We all see pretty much the same thing and in the same way, or at least close enough for us to agree, when we are in proximity. If that were not the case then Science - and indeed the rest of life - would be impossible.


I often think we don't - maybe we just calibrate our view to given standards.  So if a group are looking at something blue, they may well get different impressions of it;  But as long as they agree to call it blue then they can communicate about it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

Exactly so. If a group are all looking at something blue and one of them sees a pink monkey peeling a banana, what would be the reaction of the rest of the group?
And he would be well advised to see a shrink and an optician before insisting that the others had got it wrong.

(With colour it is actualy possible to do a spectral analysis and then measure precisely the colour vision of the observers to find out by how much each one deviates)


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 2, 2005)

It doesn't matter... as long as he agrees to call it blue. :lmao:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

Would make the decor in his house rather interesting. But surely the monkey should be called Cheetah? You don't get Australian monkeys.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 2, 2005)

lol!  Very good. 

Just noticed the edit:


			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> (With colour it is actualy possible to do a spectral analysis and then measure precisely the colour vision of the observers to find out by how much each one deviates)


That's fine for telling you what someone sees but it doesn't tell you much about what they perceive.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

Well that takes us neatly back to Descartes.

It is actually possible to check perception by a variety of cognitive and perceptual tests. Lots of work has been done on this because of it's importance to the military. You don't want some GI Joe with his finger on the button seeing a pink monkey peeling a banana but perceiving it as a Russian ICBM heading for NY.

What you can't measure or check is how someone _interprets_ their perceptions.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 2, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> You don't want some GI Joe with his finger on the button seeing a pink monkey peeling a banana but perceiving it as a Russian ICBM heading for NY.


He may see what you would call a pink monkey peeling a banana but to him it's just blue. 

I'd say you can quite easily find someones interpretation of their perceptions or even relate to someones perceptions but to know how they actually perceive things you'd need to be them.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Oct 2, 2005)

Yes.  Really it doesn't matter what someone percieves something as, it's arbritary.  If someone sees a monkey on a screen wheres someone else sees a blip on a screen it doesn't matter because to that person a monkey is the equivalent of a blip.   We can't prove what someone sees just what that thing means to them.  I could see red as green and green as red but to me red has always actually been green and green has always been red so If I was asked to choose the 'red' wire I would choose in relation to everyone else the green wire but to me its red.  Seeing as these are just words that don't have any real meaning to the sense.  

But then you could mention people who are colour blind.  But say percieve green as red and red as green or maybe thats what they should percieve what they actually see is brown a red and blue as green.  So theire interpretaion is wrong not their perception because perception is arbritary.


Waffle^ read if you want.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 2, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> I'd say you can quite easily find someones interpretation of their perceptions or even relate to someones perceptions but to know how they actually perceive things you'd need to be them.


As I have said, perception can be tested.
Perception is awareness through sensory stimulation. We have the same physiology with the same sensory aparatus and it works in the same way.
Children in Schools are usually subjected to sensory tests throughout their Educational life in order to pick up perceptual problems. Dyslexia is one such. Glue ear is another.
The 'average' or the 'norm' is quite easy to work out and then it is a simple matter to work out if an individual deviates from this and by how much.
Try reading up on perceptual psychology.
It is the _interpretation_ of perception where the problem lies as interpretation is informed by experience and memory. A lot of our interpretation is coloured by associations. As we have all had a slightly different experience of life our associations will be different.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 2, 2005)

You can test for perceptual compatibility within a given norm but that's not the same as knowing how someone perceives something.  Perception is knowledge and understanding gained through the senses.  Although we may come to the same conclusions, our understanding can be very different.

Our eyes may be physically similar but our brains will often work in different ways and to varying degrees will not be too dissimilar.  However, our minds/souls are unique and this is where perception is born.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Oct 3, 2005)

You are confusing the technical terms here.
Perception is the process of receiving sensory stimulation. That is a physical process that can be examined and measured.
You are talking about ascribing meaning to this sensory information - interpretation (or aprehension) that is, how we _understand_ the world.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

first of all, colour blind persons are usually not just simply colourblind as they see red as green. they see some shades of red as green. and that's where the problem strikes. how can you know for sure which green is in fact red? and the monkey peeling the banana could actually be one and then you say, no it's blue! and confusion occurs. truth is even perception is challengeable. you cannot tell me that i perceive everything the same. one time i could have my eyes red, other times it could be a unique chemical exposure which would diminguish my eyesight. or for that matter how can you tell what you perceive? that is indeed interpretation. BUT, as i personally understand interpretation is the same thing as perception. we have no tools to separate them. so it is correct to say that perception is wrong even if the interpretation is actually wrong. for we have no control over any of these two tightly linked mechanisms. who can say really which of them does not work? except by using interpretation of perceived data. and about the machines which can guess colours, it's true, but can you convince your brain to accept 0s and 1s? no you can't so you must use its own perceptual system. and if that is flawed how can you tell or correct it?

now about the dimensional approach it is momentarily impossible. if i try to sick my arm through your chest it kinda doesn't happen. so, empirically i have demonstrated that no two solid objects can be in the same place. pperiod. and about mathematical demonstrations it is as easily demonstrable that 2+2 is NOT 4. but that is mere theory with no practical outcome. what i speak of is reality. so be there more than one dimension, it is for now out of reach, therfore the same pov cannot be achieved within this single dimension.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 3, 2005)

We obviously both have a different understanding of what perception actually is.  But then that's the point, isn't it!

We can both read the same words that difine perception and we can grow up hearing the word used in the same contexts but we end up with different ideas about the very nature of perception.



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> You are confusing the technical terms here.


My idea of perception fits perfectly with any definition I've read and with general usage that I've heard.  Maybe it would be more 'open minded' to say "we are confusing the technical terms here".

As for the dimensions... well, isn't it obvious that if you are observing something from the same time-space as someone else but from a different dimension,  the very thing you're observing could be something else occupying the same time-space as your couterparts observation but in a different dimension.  Afterall, if your counterpart isn't present in this other dimension, why would anything else from their dimension be in yours?


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

marktwo just a sidequestion while others respond as well: what's with the avatar?


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 3, 2005)

It's a character from a TV show called Little Britain.  It's available internationally so check it out if you get the chance - although the humour may not be to international tastes.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

hehe, i like british humour, well at least to an extent, some just leave me cold too... 
it's really an odd avataar, like daniel's...  by the way, speaking of british tv and all: ever seen late night shopping?


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 3, 2005)

No, I can't say that I have.  The only late night shopping I'm familiar with is via the internet.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

nice one. it's a really great british movie, made with FilmFour i believe, but very very interesting concept and all.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 3, 2005)

Just found a few reviews - sounds quite good.  I'll have to keep my eyes open for it.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 3, 2005)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> What are they, if I may ask?



You may never get your answer, Dan.  This thread has degenerated into philosophy, teen angst, pink monkies, and movies.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

who's dan? i'm the one who started this thread. and what question do you talk about? oh, i see it now. but i answered that like decades ago... just look 4m higher 

btw the movie is great try it, get it off dc or smth 

and plus my last reply was not quite replied to.


----------



## jadin (Oct 3, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> , but can you convince your brain to accept 0s and 1s? no you can't so you must use its own perceptual system. and if that is flawed how can you tell or correct it?



I don't see how the brain can't adapt to 1s and 0s. Also a machine could just as easily use a base 10 system instead of a base 2, it just happens that machines started out with base 2 and we've been building on that ever since.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> now about the dimensional approach it is momentarily impossible. if i try to sick my arm through your chest it kinda doesn't happen. so, empirically i have demonstrated that no two solid objects can be in the same place. pperiod. and about mathematical demonstrations it is as easily demonstrable that 2+2 is NOT 4. but that is mere theory with no practical outcome. what i speak of is reality. so be there more than one dimension, it is for now out of reach, therfore the same pov cannot be achieved within this single dimension.



I don't understand why we're still discussing this. Hertz isn't claiming that it's possible to be in the same place, but that _IF_ it was possible, they would have the same pov. We all seem to be in agreement, just emphasizing different aspects of the same argument.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 3, 2005)

0s and 1s is a metaphor, i just mean that for the moment our nervous systems are incompatible with raw data. and it would be wrong to teach them 0s and 1s when they already know their code which to me seems is working just fine... 

oh ok we'll drop that part it is indeed splitting hairs with a very fine knife


----------



## jadin (Oct 3, 2005)

Ahhh. Now it makes sense. I didn't realize you were talking about the fact that our brains are faster in it's own 'code'. For some reason I we'd moved on.


----------



## eydryan (Oct 4, 2005)

> For some reason I we'd moved on


 
speaking in your own code here man  by the way nice logo change.


----------

