john larkin <jl@650pot.com> Wrote in message:r> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:08 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r>> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.>>I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.> Eg; talking to oneself. >>Cheers Some people really talk to themselves, out loud, which can beconfusing to others.I'm referring to internal, not out loud. Search 'internal monologue ' on youtube. It's interesting, never knew there were people like that. Cheers -- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
mental imaging
Started by ●January 2, 2024
Reply by ●January 5, 20242024-01-05
Reply by ●January 6, 20242024-01-06
On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:>This has been in the science news lately. > >https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words > >Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize >objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics. > >And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we) >always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from >hallucinations.Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something? I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain. RL
Reply by ●January 6, 20242024-01-06
The idiot legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > From: legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: mental imaging > Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Lines: 19 > Message-ID: <jvsipidtd3bf67qm51b81ksc6e2a2gtah7@4ax.com> > References: <bma9pi9ku61qchabtps5f6toqj91d0u5q6@4ax.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa5c69d39e3e07cc25fa1de8173f06cb"; > logging-data="706380"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185M3TSa0e6UtrykYoorrm2" > Cancel-Lock: sha1:uKlx8Lu1vpjAruU0wtRcfuKpfkA= > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 > X-Received-Bytes: 1621
Reply by ●January 8, 20242024-01-08
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >wrote: > >>This has been in the science news lately. >> >>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words >> >>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize >>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics. >> >>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we) >>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from >>hallucinations. > >Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something? >Some people close their eyes to better hear voices or music, or appreciate flavors or whatever. Or kiss.>I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.Both need brain bandwidth. In some university math departments, a professor's office has a couch where they can recline and close their eyes think about mathematics and get paid, too. I have my best ideas while I'm asleep. 100% available brain bandwidth. When do you get your best electronic design ideas?> >RL
Reply by ●January 8, 20242024-01-08
On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:> [...] > When do you get your best electronic design ideas?When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long way ;) ) -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
Reply by ●January 8, 20242024-01-08
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:>On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote: >> [...] >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas? > >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long >way ;) )My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or days? Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of them simultaneously.
Reply by ●January 8, 20242024-01-08
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> > wrote: > >> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote: >>> [...] >>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas? >> >> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long >> way ;) ) > > My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is > a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be > made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits > exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts > make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or > days? > > Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of > them simultaneously. > >;) ‘Tain’t that hard a problem—it doesn’t have to be the ultimate, most cosmically optimal solution—it just needs to work right, and (ideally) be pretty enough to be satisfying to the designer. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Reply by ●January 8, 20242024-01-08
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:04:07 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> > wrote: > >On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote: > >> [...] > >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas? > > > >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long > >way ;) ) > My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is > a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be > made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits > exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts > make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or > days? > > Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of > them simultaneously.Of course, setting up a "goodness" mask involves working out what you want the circuit to do, and one vital part of invention involves seeing that there is a problem that could be solved. Once you've defined the problem, the solution can be trivial. Politicians define lots of problems, most of which don't actually exist, and then tout their "solutions". Hitler thought that German needed more living space. Donald Trump seems to have though that the US needed fewer immigrants. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●January 9, 20242024-01-09
On 1/6/2024 8:40 AM, legg wrote:> Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?I have no problem "visualizing" STATIC objects, regardless of whether eyes are open or closed and whether or not the "scene" around me is static or dynamic. Showering, walking, even driving. But, to "visualize" dynamic processes, I find I have to either have a static scene engaging my sight *or* close my eyes (thereby creating one).> I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.
Reply by ●January 9, 20242024-01-09
On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:27:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:>On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: > >>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>wrote: >> >>>This has been in the science news lately. >>> >>>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words >>> >>>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize >>>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics. >>> >>>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we) >>>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from >>>hallucinations. >> >>Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something? >> > >Some people close their eyes to better hear voices or music, or >appreciate flavors or whatever. Or kiss. > >>I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain. > >Both need brain bandwidth. > >In some university math departments, a professor's office has a couch >where they can recline and close their eyes think about mathematics >and get paid, too. > >I have my best ideas while I'm asleep. 100% available brain bandwidth. > >When do you get your best electronic design ideas?It's the other way around; most of the better ideas get me by accident. You just have to notice them, when they occur. . . . but walking the dog or riding the bike is a good start to the day. RL
