[grip_daddy]

Sound: physical vibration of air, vibrates ear drum, sent to brain.

We can convert light to sound by manipulating light and matter interaction. For example we can set a photoreceptor to transmit an electric impulse which then causes a speaker to produce sound, hence alarms, but the speed of sound will still limit our perception of event occurrence.

If we go back to our basic analogy in this thread; person A, person B and the observer C, we can see an understanding to sense limitation.

Since C can only detect sound, we can give A and B a light emitting device and C can be fitted with a light-sound converter earpiece. Given the speed of light, the information reaching C as to when A and B fired can now be correctly (with some error) interpreted...because B signal will reach C some nanoseconds after firing instead of the 30 seconds. The error will surface from the speed of light, conversion mechanism inherent in the device's operation/performance method, and efficiency.


If A waits 10 seconds to fire after B had fired, C will be able to know that event A actually happened after event B, of which the conversion of light to sound meant a somewhat improvement on the event chronology perception.

When we come back to reality, we will need to convert an information carrier that travels faster than light to interact with let's say matter in order to produce one of these five senses' signals, which then would lead to perception of events better and close to accuracy.

For example, if such a carrier is emitted from a star one billion light years away, but it only takes it one second to reach the earth's surface, we could infer what the star is like as at now by converting the carrier to let's say light energy.

So, in a way, we will be able to know the events that are one billion light years away today (the events in that star relative to our knowledge) due to our ability to expand our sense of light reception, perception and interpretation.

But what new thing can we *know*? Nothing. Nothing because our observer C can only hear sound and interprete events according to time of arrival. The observer cannot in any way see the firing action, to know that it is light, to know how light looks like, to know how in reality the guns, person A and person B actually look like.

What can the observer intuitionalise? Let's say gun A emits red light which C's earpiece converts to be a bass, while B emits green light which the earpiece converts to a treble, what C can infer is that A and B are different events at different times, but C will never know what EXACT events they are.

C can say that since A is a bass, it is coming from a nearby object (planet, star, etc), and since B is a treble, it must be from a far away object, etc which interpretation is misconceived by his way of logical deduction and experimentation.



What C can know is limited by his senses of perception, and there is nothing that he can do about it.

[grip_daddy]

The foregoing discussion looked into an aspect of sound perception that can be enhanced to detect non sound sources, remarkably showing how the interpretations and inferences made from such expansion could mislead, fail to convey the TRUE information, and generally the so called logical deduction end up in silly and ignorant conclusions.

As a result of the previous post, I spent a remarkable time imagining how best I could illustrate on limit of sight as a sense tool. I thought to hypothesise as follows:

Consider a possibility of discovering another planet like earth in all respects except that human species is missing; same geology, same geography, same ecosystem, same plants and animals, but absense of humans (a rather description of a biblical earth at the end of the fifth creation day).

Then let's say some infants that are totally blind by birth, who can only give birth to the blind, whose vision functionality are impaired straight from the genetic codes, are placed in this planet. So they are left to grow, develop, advance, replicate (give birth to blind humans), and also, since they haveadvanced reasoning power, logical understanding of concepts, ability to ask questions and seek answers, they device means to acquire, preserve and propagate knowledge.

One of their primary concerns would be to understand their environment. So the quest to understand this would be to let's say analyse their means of communication, of which will be the study of sound.

One thing they will realise is that sound must travel because the speaker and the listener are not at the same point. So my question here will be, given the primitivity of these people, how best will they expand their sense of sound?

Accordingly, imagine a way an experiment could be set by them to detect differences in objects. One way would be to send sound to an object, be reflected by the object, then they analyse the resulting variations in sound quality.

How would they explain their source of energy? Can they at one time know that there is light? How will they rationalise a concept that at times there is heat (they through the sense of touch will feel hotter when directly being hit by the sun rays) whereas at some other time there is cold?

How can they investigate a phenomenon like photosynthesis?

Let's expand this sense of sound first and understand its limitation assuming the hypothesised environment so that we can do some application to our possible expansion of light sense. The next post is an hypothetical experiment to understand how plants grow!

[grip_daddy]

The next post is an hypothetical experiment to understand how plants grow!

I want to set up an hypothetical development to the understanding of plants and one possible conclusion that could arise from this development by our blind brethren in planet E.

Starting from the first generation of this population, they must have developed a way to eat the right plants for nutrition and energy. So out of curiousity, accidents (most of the characteristics of foods were discovered through accidents), and assumptions that lead to experimentations, they acquired some understanding.

One of them could carry a plant into a sheltered place (a house) and leave it there. After few days, through touch, he will discover that a plant in the house dries up. He will replicate this phenomena and arrive at a conclusion that plants cannot grow inside a house.

Maybe by accident he dropped one of the plants outside the house and he touched it, he realised almost same dryness. So his earlier conclusion becomes challenged...then after replicating the two scenarios he arrives at a conclusion that plants plucked off the ground cannot grow...then the differences in texture of some plants during rainy season compared to the dry reason will lead to an understanding of how water plays part, then maybe out of curiosity, he digs up the earth, put it in a container, then plants it in the house...but still the plants dry up. So concludes that there are some special things outside there that favor plant growth? How can he know those things?

He can place the plants at a place to communicate with the outside (e.g. a window) then after some time he will discover that the plant grows towards out! Will he conclude that there is an outside upward force that also plays a part in pulling the plant up? What else could he conclude and/or eliminate such a thought? What other ways could he set up his experiment to fully comprehend his discovery? He can smell, touch, taste, and hear...how can he use these senses to know?

My conclusion after a long time of imagination was that this experimenter will never be able to set up an experiment to fully explain photosynthesis...even if he can convert light to be understood by one or combination of his senses.

It means therefore that our ability to probe into nature, the interpretations possible from such probes, the logical inferences and deductions from the received data, can only be understood as far as our five senses dictate the limits.

[Type R]

Apart from physical vibration of air, physical contact, chemical stimulation of nerves on tongue and in nose, and light stimulation of nerves on retina, are scientists aware of any other events/particles in the atmosphere that we are not picking up? What kind of organ could pick those up? Other animals may have the same senses but they are finer-tuned -- eg deer can smell water miles away.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by Type R

-- eg deer can smell water miles away.

I think we should separate the ability to modify, fine tune, convert, and/manipulate signals that are sensible from ability to sense at all.

How can a totally deaf person sense that someone is calling him from behind? We cant know or imagine, or even comprehend what can be if we had sense like that which could detect Ether (in case it exists) which is said to relatively define the constant speed of light.

[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by Type R

Apart from physical vibration of air, physical contact, chemical stimulation of nerves on tongue and in nose, and light stimulation of nerves on retina, are scientists aware of any other events/particles in the atmosphere that we are not picking up? What kind of organ could pick those up? Other animals may have the same senses but they are finer-tuned -- eg deer can smell water miles away.

Dark matter.antimatter.which makes up close to 90% of the universe.is not detectable.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I think we should separate the ability to modify, fine tune, convert, and/manipulate signals that are sensible from ability to sense at all.

I think I've found one.

Birds seem to possess a magnetic sense: -

"It has been debated for nearly four decades but no one has yet been able to prove it is chemically possible. Now good evidence suggests that birds can actually "see" the lines of the Earth's magnetic field.

Klaus Schulten of the University of Illinois, proposed forty years ago that some animals – including migratory birds – must have molecules in their eyes or brains which respond to magnetism. The problem has been that no one has been able to find a chemical sensitive enough to be influenced by Earth's weak geomagnetic field.

Now Peter Hore and colleagues at the University of Oxford have found one."

Read more here...

More here.