I swear I’m not Jessica

blahaj.zone account for @TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world

  • 5 Posts
  • 109 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: October 30th, 2024
  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Rule-level vision testEnglish
    4·
    2 hours ago

    I doubt a single image can say something so broad reaching about someone’s cognition. You’d need multiple images displayed in more standardized conditions to know anything with confidence. People could be seeing this on all sorts of displays, from an OLED smartphone screen with blue light filter enabled, to an HDR monitor with custom color calibration. They could have the image fill different proportions of their field of view and see it in very different emotional contexts. A single data point cannot say anything about a person’s cognition.

    On top of that, I have no idea what you mean by high vs low level vision. Are you talking about bottom-up vs top-down processing more generally?

    Is it specifically testing to see how your brain changes the color or brightness of the red/orange based on depth cues?

    The spacing of the lines on the circles gives the perception of a red/orange circle behind an object with slits cut out of it. Many of us can see an occluded circle because it’s useful to be able to identify objects that are particularly hidden. It’s like seeing an animal hiding in a bush at 100 meters, where you can’t rely on binocular clues to perceive depth.

    I’m guessing that the color/brightness change is similar to seeing the sun or the moon through a tree canopy. I’ve noticed that they look dimmer and more orange in a similar way to this image. The moon looks bigger and more yellow if it’s seen on the horizon or through trees.

    Regardless, a single image on 196 can’t fully demonstrate which way you lean on anything.

  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•peak philosophical discourse ruleEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    Never could be. That said, there is a function to life that is very similar to a meaning, but it’s somehow even less satisfying.

    Life is a sequence of self perpetuating chemical processes that occurred by pure chance and were allowed to build in complexity over time. The processes that were able to self perpetuate the best would be the ones to continue, leading to the iterative feedback loop that defines evolution. As they grew in complexity, the replicators not only trended towards mechanisms to respond to challenges to their own existence, they also became better at iterating and improving as quickly as possible. At this point, the first lifeforms would actively improve their own chances, shaping randomness in their favor beyond what pure luck would provide.

    Coming back to us humans, we’re effectively driven in the same way as all life: work to exist with the goal of continuing to exist. We exist to replicate and endless sequence of chemical reactions. We work because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to work anymore. It’s not a meaning, but a simple fact. It’s a circular argument that only needed enough lucky dice rolls to start.

    This is the closest to objective meaning, but like I said before, I don’t give a shit about living by it. Evolution is a cruel process that designs suffering and death into our lives to maximize that objective goal. Everything we want and desire evolved to point us to action, so there’s no real way to work against it. We’ll just end up at a dead end, or actually help the process advance, so we might as well just do what we find best. I personally favor maximizing human well being over the well being of any larger construct.