Hello everyone, it's LinkArt for another episode of mouth therapy. For this episode is going to be what this podcast was intended to be, a verbalization of my train of thought to make sense of abstract ideas that I may have. So, I was in the car about a week or two ago and I was randomly thinking about reality and how we perceive reality and how valid our senses might or might not be in perceiving reality. And I was thinking about how in our side class this year we psychology we learned that if you give someone glasses that make them see things upside down they eventually get used to it to the point that if for example a week later you make them take the glasses off they perceive what is real to us quote unquote to upside down for them.
And we tried that in class we had glasses that made us see things shifted everything around us shifted to the left or to the right and eventually we got used to that and perceived things just normally through the glasses that shifted things and so I was thinking if someone were to wear glasses that made everything look like a fish eye lens as in more light came not as in their field of vision just expanded and everything seemed more round then they probably eventually would perceive that to be what reality is. So, for example, if they were in a white room with just nothing though sound theoretically and had just a piece of paper in front of them laid out in front of them so they see the face of it of it and had fisheye lenses glasses on they would perceive that piece of paper let's say it's square and completely flat as a round kind of entity. And I was my first theory was that that would kind of disprove that what you see is what actually is there because we've all heard them theory that we're in a simulation but what that doesn't address is that if for example you have a cube in your hand if that cube is actually a cube what it addresses is if you're in a simulation the cube in your hand doesn't exist you have a cube but it's in your hands and you perceive that through stimulation but it doesn't actually exist but what the simulation theory doesn't address is that the cube in your hand isn't actually a cube that it's not something with six flat surfaces that we know to be a cube that it can actually be a bunch of forms and I was thinking yeah yeah that's actually it because if you had fish eye lenses on then it would not be a cube with flat surfaces and and stuff it would be a round form but then if you're wearing fish eye lenses you will you only way you can get used to that is because everything the whole reality that you see will be rounded so that theory then doesn't work the theory that just because you hold a cube in your hand doesn't mean it's a cube that it can be an infinite number of forms that doesn't work with the argument that people get can get used to their vision being changed and so that's the point where I am now is I understand that humans visions can be altered and that we can get used to that and perceive that as our normal reality but I don't completely understand what that entails kind of to summarize everything that I've said so far I'll talk about the simulation theory is that basically we're in a simulation that that's the theory and that we perceive simulations but that someone else is creating it for example if I'm touching the floor right now that someone is sending simulations to my finger making me perceive that there's a floor that I'm touching but what that theory doesn't address is that in my world in what I'm perceiving that there actually is a floor what it says that the floor doesn't exist but it doesn't address the question of is there actually a floor it just assumes that I am personally there is a floor with one shape and what I was trying to address is can we find a way that addresses the possibility that I will go back to holding a cube me holding a cube and perceiving that cube is not enough of evidence to prove that there is actually a cube because if we alter humans visions it seems that we can actually get used to it so if we put on glasses to make the cube seem seem round then we would get used to that and perceive the cube to be round and at first I thought that was proof enough that just because we perceive something to be a certain way doesn't mean it is a certain way and it can actually be a very attuned of different ways this is this is extreme this I know this is confusing because even I am getting confused but basically what I'm what I was getting at is that if we showed which is likely that wearing fish eye lenses for a week would make us use to them and perceive our reality as as round as the fish the fish eye lenses glasses would allow us to that could not prove that whatever we perceive could have a myriad of different myriad different forms and shapes so let's take a cube why why I don't think that is because if you take a cube and place it in a senseless just completely empty white room how we would perceive it right now is six faces and equal length for each face equal number of equal area if we put fish eye lenses on we would perceive that form to be round that whole cube however technically I do not think that would be a different form than perceiving a cube as a cube in normal sight and why I don't think that is fish eye lenses change the entire nature of our site so if you took your finger and ran it across one of the faces of the cube when your finger would be distorted and even if you got used to that and made fish eye lenses site how you saw reality it wouldn't change the fact that your finger would also be round distorted and move along the face of the cube kind of in a round manner but the length of the cube would not be changed it would basically since fish eye lenses change the entirety of our site it cannot prove that one individual item can adopt can have different forms regardless of how we perceive it I'm not going to edit this I don't know how long it's been nine years ago no how long I'm gonna keep going I'd be I'd be amazed that anyone even makes it this far but I was I was really really thinking about this because I don't know it's just there's I was watching I was watching YouTube and just videos about black holes and things like this and there's so much stuff that we don't know and and I don't remember who talked about this but the nominal and phenomenal world and I was thinking of just how I really believe in the theory of how there are things that as we see them and then things in themselves and how you can never see things in themselves and why that is I talked to them I talked about that in another episode is because you see if you saw someone in themselves you'd see their individual items you'd see their family problems you'd see everything about them then their smell everything just every single information their smell their side their touch their everything would just come to you and that'd be overwhelming if we saw things in themselves it would be completely overwhelming and I do think that that theory kind of coincides with the fourth dimension and whether fourth dimension is seeing things in three dimensions is width length and depth and four dimension is also seeing them across time so we live in the third dimension because we live moment to moment we can't see things we can't see things we can't see things through time at the same time it that makes any sense I can see someone walking through a room and me seeing them walk moment moment kind of go from their start to the end point I can string that together as being as them being walking through a room but I won't see that at the same time and if we were able to see things in themselves I think we would be able to see things also through time so if we if we were able to see something in themselves like a person let's take the example of person we would not only see their individual atoms family problems thoughts everything every context that there is to them we would also see that for for everything from their death from their birth to their death so we would see them at the moment we look we were looking at them and say they were 26 we would see them on their 26th birthday when we saw them kind of blowing their candle with the family problems they had then their securities their when they believe to be their strength everything but then we would also see them at that exact moment the day after with all everything that's said but for their day after and also for their day before that's a different topic entirely I think I'm gonna stop there I still don't know what to make of the fish islands thing that I thought about it I don't think it says anything about the nature of reality just that just what it showed is that the limited amount of light and the limited amount of light for example that we can see is basically we can alter that we can change that we can we can change how we see the limited amount of light that we see but we cannot that what I said doesn't prove anything about the validity of objects inside what we see that yeah okay and I think this is getting more and more confused confusing so I'll just stop it there if honestly if you made it this far I'm impressed thank you