We can see the future

StoryG27

Miss Behave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
10,394
Reaction score
4,062
Location
TN
Hmm, very interesting.

My Hubby is on a Live Science article, there's a picture of his platoon because there some talk of volunteering them to colonize the moon or other planets because they're already used to really crappy living conditions. I didn't know what to make of that, but Live Science is a site I can go to every time I need an idea. It's interesting. Some of it is bizarre, some is beyond bizarre, and just crazy enough to be correct. It's a fun place to rummage through some brilliant and unique minds.
 

JLCwrites

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
3,079
Reaction score
5,696
Location
Pacific NW
I'm blond... does that mean that I see things 1/10 of a second after it happens? (goes stumbling though the kitchen)
 

slcboston

Pasture-ized
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
50,318
Reaction score
29,062
Location
Second Star To The Right
i'm not a scientist, but I'm a bit confused:

the article says the visual system compensates by generating images of what will occur... but wouldn't that require some sort of processing by the brain? Your eyes themselves just *see* what's there, so at some point if this "future processing" is going on, wouldn't that be subject to the same processing delay that results in the 1/10th second lag in the first place?

can someone explain what seems like an inherent flaw in this to me?
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
i'm not a scientist, but I'm a bit confused:

the article says the visual system compensates by generating images of what will occur... but wouldn't that require some sort of processing by the brain? Your eyes themselves just *see* what's there, so at some point if this "future processing" is going on, wouldn't that be subject to the same processing delay that results in the 1/10th second lag in the first place?

can someone explain what seems like an inherent flaw in this to me?


No, I think the gist that our eyes "see" 1/10th of a second "in the future" to compensate for the lag, so when our brain processes the images, it's in sync with the current event. So to our brains (perception), it's in real time. But if -- and that's where the story idea comes in -- we can somehow harness the direct signal from the eye (to a computer with no lag, for example), then theoretically we could "see" into the future.