AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
section A


This is the framework that I will build my argument on:

1.) People living in three Dimensions move Electrons while interacting with their environment.

2.) People do this moving of electrons with their eyes open.

3.) People do this moving of electrons with their eyes closed while they rest in meditation.


This next statement is about three dimensions and how it relates to moving electrons.

4.) There is a relative point of view of three dimensions: how you see three dimensions, not what somebody else see's.


We navigate around our environment thinking about what is immediately around us that can affect us rather than what is safely far away.


If we have a obstacle course of following a painted spiral on the ground and the spiral is easy to follow.

We follow the line directly before us. we think about the part of the painted line we must navigate at that moment.


If somebody else was behind me and they were following the painted line too, they would have a different part of the painted line before them.

This means there is a relative point of view of the painted spiral on the ground: what you see, not what somebody else see's.

Just because I'm in front of them doesn't mean they use what I see of the painted spiral, they reason with their brain what is before them at that moment.


__________________________


Section B


And this leads me to my point.

When we close our eyes to meditate and rest, we think. What we think about is moving and interacting with out environment.

When the movies three dimensions are reasoned in this meditative state, how do we separate reality from a movie?


Movies in three dimensions: use the z axis which let's you see the picture so some parts of it are in the distance and some are up close to you.

This effect make it more immersive.

But the thing is it makes us reason what is closer to us and what is farther from us, just like reality does.


In reality since we think more about what is closer to us, we think about handling it.

Take a hamburger for instance, you think more about the one served to you for dinner rather than the one somebody else is eating, especially if your hungry.


So back to the movies using three dimensions, since the movie picture is closer to us when in 3D does our subconscious differentiate that what it see's is a movie and not reality?

If the subconscious thinks while we rest and mediate with out eyes closed, and there we think about our environment we live in, does the subconscious add what it saw in the 3D movie to what we think about?

If we are creatures of habit, then what habits are being formed as our subconscious adds what it see's in the 3D movies to our coping skills, our learning skills?


Perhaps a habit is being formed when the person rests after watching a 3D movie and the person considers what they saw with their eyes closed.

And that is why people talk about wanting to live in the planet Pandora from the movie Avatar, habits are hard to break, a learned skill is difficult to unlearn.


If this is the case then unstable people who are susceptible to influence will be negatively affected by watching 3D, especially if they do so watching the same movie several times in a few days or weeks.

Also if a child's brain is still unformed fully then how will it develop with the influence of 3D television and theater if their brains add what they see to their learning and coping skills?


Perhaps, after viewing all of the above, Humans weren't meant to have 3D movies and television. If the kids and weak people can't handle 3D, then why should the regular healthy people who can watch 3D entertainment do so?


__________________________


If you would like to say why you disagree with something in this first post, then please say which sections and which part of the logic you don't understand or disagree with.



__________________________


Edit, here is some more information. What you do with this information or if you disbelieve it or deny it is up to you. Like they say in the movie the matrix: take the red pill or the blue pill.




The path taken in the picture is a Dog sees 2 dimensional picture.

It interpretes that picture so it changes from 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions.


If the 3 dimensions is not interpreted to 3 dimensions, but looks 3 dimensional, and is still a 2 dimensional picture.

Then how does the brain add the information that this is a 2 dimensional picture it interpretes to 3 dimensions?

It doesn't add that information that the picture is 2 dimensions and it switched it to look like 3 dimensions.

The result is a image that appears to the brain as 3 dimensions, and the brain is wired to operate in 3 dimensions, so the picture becomes reality to the brain.


Then when the person finished watching the 3D movie and rests with the eyes closed, the brain figures out how to operate successfully in the world.

The thoughts treat the movie's environment as someplace that needs to be figured out how to survive and be successful there.


People can lose touch with reality if their brain can't distinguish reality from a movie, and there is the feeblness.

And children who grow up with this are no different and are not immune to how the brain interpretes this 2 d picture as though it were real life 3d.


__________________________


I will describe a test to verify the brain treats 3d differently than 2d when discussing movies.


If you can scan a persons brain while they view both 2D and 3D movies so you could see the regions of the brain that go active, here is what to test.

Show a video of some object moving from one side of the screen to the other or the middle of the screen erratically. Then show that object being thrust towards the viewer or test subject.

Depending on what is shown moving about on the screen the persons brain should show different levels of response: very alert, or amused, etc.


The brain should treat 2d shown on a screen at a distance much differently than a full blown 3d picture than fills the persons view like imax movie screen.


The argument is that the brain becomes used to 3d and eventually responds like 2d. So you would need many different things that move erratically: one test shown a clown, another test shown a lizard, another test shown a small child that needs to be helped to walk, another could show a puppy, etc.


If after many tests with each test showing a different object moving erratically the brain shows it thinks the video is 2d for both the 3d and 2d tests, then 3d is not a problem for healthy adults.

Then, if allowed you could test a child, then a mentally unstable person who takes their medication and is stable.


And if you do this test, publish the results in this thread too so the other people who think 3d is safe can see if they are right or not.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
After considering what I said in the first post it seems that weak people get weaker with too much 3D. They yearn for experiencing what they saw.

Also it may make children have a similar inclination, making the distinction between reality and movie difficult for the subconscious mind to do while they rest with their eyes closed.


The risk to healthy adults is there to, with their subconscious possibly not being able to distinguish the z axis in movies from reality while they rest with their eyes closed.


The z axis is going through the eyes into the brain and may be introducing feebleness to a massive portion of the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,413 Posts
[speechless]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,626 Posts
hmmm


they may have to add a warning label to the product: perhaps set a minimum age to view 3D: and certainly the mentally unstable should not be exposed to this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
Aren't these wild and weird fears (did the OP really spend time thinking and typing all that stuff?
) a lot like when color TV was introduced?


"Don't set too close to the TV or you will go blind".

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 /forum/post/18217576


After considering what I said in the first post it seems that weak people get weaker with too much 3D....

I noticed hat after I saw Avatar the next day at the gym I could only lift 1/2 the weight. Also when I ran I lost a full 1 minute per mile. Thanks for showing me the effects and dangers of 3D are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I updated the first post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,032 Posts
What he's saying is somewhat legit, as studies have been done (but not proven). It'll be like some kids that have seizures from some video games and videos. Not a big deal, but I'm sure there will be warning labels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
"And that is why people talk about wanting to live in the planet Pandora from the movie Avatar..."


Has anyone seen the movie in 2D? I have a feeling one would want to visit Pandora regardless, it was just that cool.


But yeah, perhaps we'll become so used to things coming at us without effect that we will loose the sensation to react to approaching hazards i.e. baseballs and fists.


While that is kind of a joke, eventually 3D will become a standard and what we think is amazing now will just be the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin /forum/post/18218090


hmmm


they may have to add a warning label to the product: perhaps set a minimum age to view 3D: and certainly the mentally unstable should not be exposed to this

Or, we could just allow people to be responsible for themselves instead of making everyone and everything else responsible for their behavior.


If they have a problem with 3D then they can stay home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,326 Posts
The OPs post was a joke right? Made me chuckle for sure.


8:13? I have to ask if your from, living in, or ever lived in Boulder, CO?



Your initial post on this thread reminds me very much of a recent conversation I had with a few Boulderites is all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Sounds like someone took a psychology class.


I'd believe in the flying spagetti monster before believing in modern psychology.


As for 3d... I personally think books are much more immersive and dangerous in the way the OP is talking about. Movies, including 3d are passive experiences. You sit and just watch. Books require your brain to actively create a world in your head. When watching some movies, there is a recovery period when my brain wants to believe it is still in the world. I find the recovery period for a really good movie for me is maybe ten minutes. An hour at most for a really, really good movie. However the recovery period for a good book can be days to even weeks for a really, really good book, because my brain created a vast world while reading the book.


So... I would say this is normal human behavior... unless you want to go back to hunting and never tell stories.


As far as kids or mentally unstable persons... kids will be fine. I still say books are more "dangerous" so far as what the OP is talking about. Mentally unstable persons... well if they are prone to being susceptable to this kinda thing then their caregivers/loved ones should keep them from it. We don't need any warnings or anything. Then again, this is America, so I'm sure we'll plaster them with a warning at some point.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
867 Posts
I do not think 3D will be like marijuana and increase the risk of those pre-disposed suffering mental ill health. Psychology has a long history of blaming things in the world for mental health issues that turn out to be genetic. An underlying genetic pre-disposition to mental ill health maybe triggered by stress or illegal drugs or caused by brain damage. Delusional people can not differentiate what they imagine from what is real and act on delusions they believe to be real. In this age of TV this can make them believe something off TV or that they are Jesus Christ or whatever, the manifestation of their delusion is not indicative of its underlying cause.


Differentiating fiction from reality is already done. Books, pictures, TV shows, films can already be factual or fantasy. Most people do just fine and people who have problems distinguishing the two are just as likely to think the X-Files are based on fact, as they are to dismiss a hard to believe news story like people landing on the moon as fiction.


With 3D I do not think you have anything more to worry about. 2D TV does not look flat, even illustrations do not look flat, the eyes are already being fooled into seeing a third dimension with depth cues where real depth does not exist. But the conscious mind is not so easily fooled. An unexpected new experience like the first motion picture of a train rushing to run over the audience may if you believe the tales of had people momentarily fooled, but we quickly adapt, perception and understanding of reality is shaped by experience. The novelty quickly wears off, people are not still paying to see 2D movies of trains rushing towards them, although you can still pay to see a 3D film of a roller coaster ride.


The eyes/brain makes loads of assumptions about reality that can be wrong, already. But you come to no psychological harm.


The well known Adelbert Ames perspective demonstration/illusion of a odd shaped room with two people in it. It is usually perceived as a normal rectangular room with one very tiny and one normal sized person in it. It relies on the fact that it is axiomatic that you perceive the objects in the room as being the things that are odd sized and not the room, despite knowing logically that an unfeasibly tiny person is less likely than an odd shaped room. This illusion does not work on people who are from cultures where non-rectangular rooms are commonly encounters, they see the room as the thing that is odd shaped. It is assumption that has been made/learned intuitively by the brain about the shapes of rooms and is then being used intuitively to interpret reality. Memory and context shapes what you perceive as reality. But it does not effect how you rationalize reality, the eyes are fooled but not the conscious mind, you know it is an illusion, you just can not stop yourself from seeing it. It does not make you believe in and check for tiny people hiding in the corners of rooms.


Unlearned faulty perception and conclusions are also normal. For example in the Eleanor Gibson visual cliff experiment you have a floor then a severe drop of several ft then a continuation of the floor at the bottom, then a severe rise and a continuation of the floor at its original level. You tile the floor and sides of the drop and floor at the bottom, etc.. with square tiles. Now you fix a very thick piece of load bearing glass across the whole floor. A baby will not crawl over the precipice. Even if mummy is seen by baby to walk over the precipice and place teddy over the precipice, even if mummy calls to baby and encourages baby to come to her across the precipice. As far as baby is concerned mummy and teddy are all somehow levitating, baby knows baby can not fly, baby will fall, no way baby going over the edge. But an adult will walk across the glass over the drop without any irrational fear of falling. They know their perception is being fooled, it does not make them believe they can levitate.


Dependance on perception and intuitive understanding of reality can be extreme. Inversion goggles reverse depth perception. Put them on a monkey, the monkey rapidly refuses to move, for days, it would rather go without food and water, it can no longer comprehend how its moving relates to physical reality, eventually driven by desperation it will move slowly backwards. Fortunately humans have the ability to comprehend and accept that their perceptions can be fallible. Put them on an adult human and you only get momentary confusion and bewilderment.


I do not believe 3D is any more dangerous than any other form of media. A book, picture, radio play, TV show or film can already be emotionally disturbing. Not everyone can sit through some horror movies, and news stories about horrific crimes can keep people up at night, without the need for 3D. I do not believe the fact that 3D might more easily fool the eyes will make it more believable or inherently more emotionally disturbing. It is the reader/listener/viewers own mind that makes something disturbing to them.


Same goes for fixation and obsession it is content driven, it is the thrill it gives the reader/listener/viewer. The Internet with its lack of censorship and illusion of anonymity is more likely to feed fixations and obsessions or be what people call a corrupting influence.


How dangerous the media is depends on how much you view it as feeding demand, reflecting existing human nature, and how much you view it as influencing human nature. Media panders to and reflects society as well as possibly shaping society by changing what people view as normal behavior or socially acceptable or desensitizing people. I do not believe 3D will be any more effective at this than any other form of media, because the viewer knows they are watching a film not looking out of a window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
Maybe the OP watched Videodrome (1983) (in 2D!) 'too many times' and is just worried that the 'in development for 2011 release' remake of Videodrome will be filmed in 3D . . . and turn out 'better' (or maybe I mean 'worse') than the original...?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I updated the first post with a test to verify that 3d is safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 /forum/post/18277863


I updated the first post with a test to verify that 3d is safe.

Vitrified safe for kids or mentally unstable people and what about me mentally unstable kids?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
Certainly thought-provoking. Bravo 8:13.


I'd think a strong-rooted sense of what's real vs. unreal is critical for everyone.


However, if 3D images produce some larger psychological effect vs. books, story-telling, day-dreaming, traditional 2D movies and tv, etc. then wouldn't live performances also have a stronger effect?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat /forum/post/18279333


... wouldn't live performances also have a stronger effect?

don't even get me started about cirque du soleil! I swear I almost severed a limb thinking I could do that stuff
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top