I had a really interesting conversation with a friend last week after work, and part of it revolved around the concept of love. I tried to make a distinction between love and being 'in love', and something clicked: this distinction seemed to me to be the clearest example of the difference between mind and body I have found thus far.
Loving and being 'in love' may seem synonymous to many, but for me they are two very different things. I have felt love for many people I've known and respected - friends, professors, writers, model photographers - but the best way I can describe my personal version of that sentiment is a warm, almost comfortable feeling that almost always brings a smile to my face. Love for me is a sentimental mix of respect, reliability and confidence. As for the physical sensations the sentiment brings me, it is a warm, almost fuzzy feeling I can almost feel leaping between my head and my heart.
Being 'in love', on the other hand, is a purely physical experience that affects the mind in a secondary way, a sensation that hinders or even ignores the mind altogether. I would say that being in love is a purely 'chemical experience' resulting, foremost, from the recognition of a genetically compatible mate, or, secondly, the recognition of a mate fitting (sometimes preconceived) ideals of what a perfect mate would be. The feeling of attraction, the need to touch, to hold, is only physical in its origins, and, although exhilarating, can sometimes be even quite painful.
I like the 'roller coaster' analogy of being in love: it's a good description of the ups and downs resulting from the battle between body and mind. One is first drawn by the animal giddiness and need, then restrained by the mind's 'secondary thoughts' about things such as personal situation, customs or morals.
The 'roller coaster' period always ends. One can have resurgences of the feelings chemical attraction create, but that can only happen if one maintains a positive relationship with one's mate, a relationship based on respect and confidence - or, in one word: love.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Monday, 8 February 2010
Reason vs. Culture - my quest for Objective Analysis
Going back to my earlier writing on the conflict between gut and mind, how can one examine oneself to, not only determine the cause and effect of his own behaviour, but to determine the very origins of the cause itself? One has almost to separate oneself from oneself, or, in observing others, forget that one is human altogether.
Speaking on a personal note, I began at a very young age to try to determine the reasoning behind what I was told to do (or the origins of people's definitions of wrong and right) instead of simply following the rule without question; this often led me into conflict with those giving orders and education, and set me apart from everyone else who was content to operate within a fixed set of rules.
I can't say that this made things easy for me. On one hand, I was generally seen as an outcast, as an unpredictable someone who's reactions to 'normal' social interaction was never that expected. Yet on the other hand, over time, I was seen as one who had answers to almost any problem - answers that often, although practicable, were again not those that any 'normal' person would think of. In short, although I was seen as weird by almost everyone I met, I was often useful for the same.
I wouldn't wish a lot of what I went through on anyone, but I have to say that, as far as thought goes, my curiosity, research and conclusions brought me a satisfaction - call it 'solidity' - in my thought processes that resulted in a feeling that was as close to freedom than any definition of the term I can think of. I suppose one could consider this sort of 'outside the box' research process as one particular to someone 'arty', but I more often tend to put my as-objective-as-possible conclusions to more practical purposes.
I'm not saying that anyone unquestionably following the status quo for behaviour is wrong per se; I even think of the behavioural status quo as sort of a machine in which one operating by the rules can even easily find happiness and satisfaction. Yet should the machine as a whole begin to ail or cause problems, it is difficult for one operating unquestionably within the rules to find any solution, especially when that person has never learned to examine the machine and problem analytically from a 'big picture' point of view and not from the perspective of one's role of a cog within. It's hard to fix a motor while you're in it.
Speaking on a personal note, I began at a very young age to try to determine the reasoning behind what I was told to do (or the origins of people's definitions of wrong and right) instead of simply following the rule without question; this often led me into conflict with those giving orders and education, and set me apart from everyone else who was content to operate within a fixed set of rules.
I can't say that this made things easy for me. On one hand, I was generally seen as an outcast, as an unpredictable someone who's reactions to 'normal' social interaction was never that expected. Yet on the other hand, over time, I was seen as one who had answers to almost any problem - answers that often, although practicable, were again not those that any 'normal' person would think of. In short, although I was seen as weird by almost everyone I met, I was often useful for the same.
I wouldn't wish a lot of what I went through on anyone, but I have to say that, as far as thought goes, my curiosity, research and conclusions brought me a satisfaction - call it 'solidity' - in my thought processes that resulted in a feeling that was as close to freedom than any definition of the term I can think of. I suppose one could consider this sort of 'outside the box' research process as one particular to someone 'arty', but I more often tend to put my as-objective-as-possible conclusions to more practical purposes.
I'm not saying that anyone unquestionably following the status quo for behaviour is wrong per se; I even think of the behavioural status quo as sort of a machine in which one operating by the rules can even easily find happiness and satisfaction. Yet should the machine as a whole begin to ail or cause problems, it is difficult for one operating unquestionably within the rules to find any solution, especially when that person has never learned to examine the machine and problem analytically from a 'big picture' point of view and not from the perspective of one's role of a cog within. It's hard to fix a motor while you're in it.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
On the Brink II : Areas of Evolution
I think three areas of the world reflect most clearly three different approaches to dealing with the battle between gut and mind: North America, Asia and Europe. I apologise in advance if some of the below seems cliché or even racist, but I'm just trying to outline and define the major tendencies of each population, and some of these may smack of existing prejudices. Don't worry, there's some for all.
North America seems to be taking the 'gut' approach. Almost everyone there judges their existence by their 'comfort level' — an existence centred on possessions and the 'feelings' that these bring to their owner. The question of 'need' is almost totally absent from the question; this has been replaced by a 'comfort level' set by the status quo — or in other words, a comparison of one's own possessions and purchasing power with those of others. As for the mind, for the larger part of the populace, thought and the exchange of ideas and information seems to be centred around comparing/justifying the valour of products, and the 'feelings' that these bring. When one applies this attitude against the real world and our real needs as humans, I almost consider it a state of denial. This is a tendency centred on the majority of the population — the middle class — but even the upper-class North American citizens of today tend to use thought to justify and defend a certain state of comfort.
To the opposite extreme, Asia, especially Japan, has taken the 'mind' approach. Everything there is centred around education and the exchange of 'useful' information and products, an exchange based on a very strict and long-standing protocol of politeness and hierarchy. There, save for a taste for gastronomical pleasures (all the same based on a strict diet) and 'identity' objects, the body seemingly does not enter the equation in matters of sex and comfort — the 'usefulness' of each act is prioritised. In fact, unhappiness and discomfort, or an enviable state almost akin to martyrdom, is embraced by the general populace as a sign that the sufferer is making a 'sacrifice' to the 'greater good' of the community and is perpetuating its strict moral laws and behaviour. This tendency can be found through all levels of Japanese society.
Europe seems to lie almost exactly between the two. Intelligence and education are indeed a major part of European culture, but the tools gained there are used, in a very selective and 'network-connected' way, to gain personal stature within a selective community network and to fulfil an often very individualistic sense of comfort, an egotistical sense of comfort that I would almost call 'self-satisfaction'. Contrary to the other two areas of evolution, the general tendency seems to diminish through the lower classes towards a level of comfort that is defined by one's usefulness and standing in an often very small community.
Each path is in some way in conflict with our basic human nature, especially where reproductive habits are concerned. The human tendency to seek multiple (and always younger) partners is almost forgiven there, and at least until recent years, being/having a mistress/lover had an almost respected community statute of its own — but within a couple, it creates all the usual problems. Infidelity in Asia is considered wrong, but the social rigour and lack of attention to bodily comfort in the greater culture often pushes people (mostly males) into infidelity; what's more, the wronged gain stature by their 'martyrdom', or the sacrifice they make to preserve the family stature in suppressing the quite natural emotions of betrayal and outrage that occur from such circumstances. American pairing habits, especially in the upper-middle class (the highest follow a protocol almost European), is a confusing and ill-definable affair, most likely because their concern with an immediate and ever-changing definition of 'comfort'.
In all, each culture's means of dealing with the conflict between gut and mind is defined by the stress they place on each: cancel one, and the other suffers.
North America seems to be taking the 'gut' approach. Almost everyone there judges their existence by their 'comfort level' — an existence centred on possessions and the 'feelings' that these bring to their owner. The question of 'need' is almost totally absent from the question; this has been replaced by a 'comfort level' set by the status quo — or in other words, a comparison of one's own possessions and purchasing power with those of others. As for the mind, for the larger part of the populace, thought and the exchange of ideas and information seems to be centred around comparing/justifying the valour of products, and the 'feelings' that these bring. When one applies this attitude against the real world and our real needs as humans, I almost consider it a state of denial. This is a tendency centred on the majority of the population — the middle class — but even the upper-class North American citizens of today tend to use thought to justify and defend a certain state of comfort.
To the opposite extreme, Asia, especially Japan, has taken the 'mind' approach. Everything there is centred around education and the exchange of 'useful' information and products, an exchange based on a very strict and long-standing protocol of politeness and hierarchy. There, save for a taste for gastronomical pleasures (all the same based on a strict diet) and 'identity' objects, the body seemingly does not enter the equation in matters of sex and comfort — the 'usefulness' of each act is prioritised. In fact, unhappiness and discomfort, or an enviable state almost akin to martyrdom, is embraced by the general populace as a sign that the sufferer is making a 'sacrifice' to the 'greater good' of the community and is perpetuating its strict moral laws and behaviour. This tendency can be found through all levels of Japanese society.
Europe seems to lie almost exactly between the two. Intelligence and education are indeed a major part of European culture, but the tools gained there are used, in a very selective and 'network-connected' way, to gain personal stature within a selective community network and to fulfil an often very individualistic sense of comfort, an egotistical sense of comfort that I would almost call 'self-satisfaction'. Contrary to the other two areas of evolution, the general tendency seems to diminish through the lower classes towards a level of comfort that is defined by one's usefulness and standing in an often very small community.
Each path is in some way in conflict with our basic human nature, especially where reproductive habits are concerned. The human tendency to seek multiple (and always younger) partners is almost forgiven there, and at least until recent years, being/having a mistress/lover had an almost respected community statute of its own — but within a couple, it creates all the usual problems. Infidelity in Asia is considered wrong, but the social rigour and lack of attention to bodily comfort in the greater culture often pushes people (mostly males) into infidelity; what's more, the wronged gain stature by their 'martyrdom', or the sacrifice they make to preserve the family stature in suppressing the quite natural emotions of betrayal and outrage that occur from such circumstances. American pairing habits, especially in the upper-middle class (the highest follow a protocol almost European), is a confusing and ill-definable affair, most likely because their concern with an immediate and ever-changing definition of 'comfort'.
In all, each culture's means of dealing with the conflict between gut and mind is defined by the stress they place on each: cancel one, and the other suffers.
Monday, 25 January 2010
On the Brink : Between Gut and Mind
Humans are in a quandary. Until relatively recently in our history, evolution has made us a creature capable of surviving in climates and situations normally inhospitable to any creature incapable of thought. But here's the problem: technological advances, and the excessive riches generated thereof, have eliminated any need or even motivation to use the tool — thought — that allowed us to survive thus far.
What separates us from animals is our ability to analyse our perceptions and memories, and constantly return to them and re-analyse them at will, thus making it possible to return to our mistakes and successes again and again and try them against every new tool we learn. Yet this 'second level' is only a layer added to the basic functions we share with animals — functions that, in my opinion, could work on an animalistic scale quite well on their own — perception-based instinctive behaviour and our empirical memories of our experiences with the same. From here on I'll call our thought ability 'mind' and our more animalistic tendencies 'gut'.
Our minds are a funny thing, as they can even work against us: not only is it possible to relive certain experiences through our memories, it is also possible to arrive at any conclusion we want based on the same, or in other words, re-invent our past (or ignore parts of it or all of it altogether). In our primitive environment, still tightly entwined with the rules and dangers of nature, such tendencies would most likely mean certain death. Yet today such dangers no longer exist: the enemy most present in our minds is 'discomfort' and the (armed) irrationality (in our opinion) of other (groups of) humans.
Comfort is a state that has no dependence at all on thought; in fact, I would say that it is a 'gut' state of satisfaction whose continuity would be destroyed by any notion of thought. Take our sexual practices for example, and try to sum and predict our pleasurable sensations in a rational way: doing so would distract from and dilute the very sensations we take such pleasure in.
I'd almost like to think of the interaction between gut and mind to be something like computer and program(mer): new routines, once imagined and 'proven', can be fed into the machine and thus modify its function. In short, our lives are an ever-evolving computer program fed into a base and never-changing hardware: push certain physical buttons and certain things happen, but with time and new routines, the base reaction would be modified by later-added sub-routines.
So basically our problem is this: we are a species whose wiring, made for a harsher environment and direct confrontations, is at odds with the programming dictated by the status quo of today. Today's status quo is an education that is still partially based, in many ways, on the 'dangers' of years before — dangers that, for most of us, only exist in our imaginations. This is the reason for the irrational and self-contradicting behaviour that is so widespread today.
What separates us from animals is our ability to analyse our perceptions and memories, and constantly return to them and re-analyse them at will, thus making it possible to return to our mistakes and successes again and again and try them against every new tool we learn. Yet this 'second level' is only a layer added to the basic functions we share with animals — functions that, in my opinion, could work on an animalistic scale quite well on their own — perception-based instinctive behaviour and our empirical memories of our experiences with the same. From here on I'll call our thought ability 'mind' and our more animalistic tendencies 'gut'.
Our minds are a funny thing, as they can even work against us: not only is it possible to relive certain experiences through our memories, it is also possible to arrive at any conclusion we want based on the same, or in other words, re-invent our past (or ignore parts of it or all of it altogether). In our primitive environment, still tightly entwined with the rules and dangers of nature, such tendencies would most likely mean certain death. Yet today such dangers no longer exist: the enemy most present in our minds is 'discomfort' and the (armed) irrationality (in our opinion) of other (groups of) humans.
Comfort is a state that has no dependence at all on thought; in fact, I would say that it is a 'gut' state of satisfaction whose continuity would be destroyed by any notion of thought. Take our sexual practices for example, and try to sum and predict our pleasurable sensations in a rational way: doing so would distract from and dilute the very sensations we take such pleasure in.
I'd almost like to think of the interaction between gut and mind to be something like computer and program(mer): new routines, once imagined and 'proven', can be fed into the machine and thus modify its function. In short, our lives are an ever-evolving computer program fed into a base and never-changing hardware: push certain physical buttons and certain things happen, but with time and new routines, the base reaction would be modified by later-added sub-routines.
So basically our problem is this: we are a species whose wiring, made for a harsher environment and direct confrontations, is at odds with the programming dictated by the status quo of today. Today's status quo is an education that is still partially based, in many ways, on the 'dangers' of years before — dangers that, for most of us, only exist in our imaginations. This is the reason for the irrational and self-contradicting behaviour that is so widespread today.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Pure at the source - The Human Idea - Religion
There's a common thread through many subjects that I am interested in - religion, politics, inventions, economy: an original idea conceived with the interests of the many at heart. Unfortunately, with time and the failings of human nature, that idea across almost all topics has often been corrupted or eradicated beyond all recognition. There has to be some way of both recognising and impeding this process.
Christian religion began with a group of people who really did believe that Jesus was 'the anointed one', a claim that was punishable by death under then Judaic law if the pretender was not found 'fit' by the religious elders to fill the role of 'chosen by god' that was 'King' then. Jesus' "left wing" views were even more undesirable to the elders because the region, almost the Jewish people as a whole, were under the Roman boot (sandal) then; yet it is understandable that his teachings made a rather marked break with the tyranny of the times, almost as the 'hippy' movement was to the Vietnam war era. In any case, this movement preaching humility and peace had to spend its first years of existence in seclusion and hiding. The Christian doctrine in its first years followed Judaic law (Jesus in his entire lifetime had never a thought about starting a new religion), but the writ of Jesus' followers (real or 'spiritual'), and the follower's followers, soon became a sort of bible of their own. Jesus' reputation as a Ghandi-like resistant to the Roman occupier made stories of his life popular to an almost enslaved people; with this popularity came the corruption and the purposeful exploitation and misinterpretation of the original idea.
Even before the Christian religion had conquered a failing Rome seeking to regain the support of the already-converted masses, confusion had already set in. With the masses came political leadership, and the differing political views and motives of the christian leaders divided the faith into several factions: the Messianic Jews, for example, retained most everything from Judaic teachings in retaining their belief that Jesus was indeed the real messiah; Catholicism, the most aggressively political Christian faction, created a marked break with the rest of Christian teaching (while attempting to retain its followers) by adopting Mary Magdalene as the figurehead of their religion (although their real teachings, compared to those of Jesus' - hardly mention her). The latter faction was also responsible for effacing most every Pagan holiday under a 'new' Christian celebration (sometimes even blatantly 'invented' from other popular religions, such as the largely undocumented story of Jesus' birth being a carbon copy of that of Mythra - or even Moses'), and replacing every existing Pagan (or other) temple on Christian 'territory' with a temple or church.
I want to underline the fact that the source of the 'Christian fracture' was political motive, as was the corruption. Although many will contest the above (through 'deconstructionism' and arguments using selective facts), the pattern holds true to one recurring through all of humanity's history: the few leading (and reaping from) the many, and their efforts to keep their privileged position.
This tendency doesn't apply only to religion: once any sort of movement at all develops a leadership that depends (or counts on) those following a status quo of their dictate, and the leadership corrupts/perverts/adds to the the movement's original message to further their own ends, the idea behind the movement's origins take on much less importance. In fact, after a movement and its corrupted dogma conquers the majority of a society loathe to think outside of the status quo, any discussion about the 'original idea' hardly matters at all.
This leads in to economics. More later.
I'll add this here because it is in the same line with the rest - but it is a bit of a rant, as I was biting my tongue as I wrote the rest. I'd like to express my dismay - and disgust - that all that's done, 'positive' and negative, in religion's name.
First off, there are thousands of people today preaching exactly what Jesus did thousands of years ago. In fact, I'd say that most of his teachings are the moral status quo for most civilised society. Set that aside, and what do we have? Miracles. Miracles that are not only incredible (read the latter word in the "not credible" sense), but never seen by anyone but the most fervent of 'believers'. In short, religion today to most of us is as useful as a magician's mumbo-jumbo, as it might as well be all illusion.
So look at what is done in 'religion's name' today - persecution, wars and charity. Persecution and war are easy enough to condemn, but charity should be a much harder target to criticise - if it wasn't such a large source of income for many churches.
I of course subscribe to aiding the lesser privileged/resourced, but not if part of my donation will be taken as 'profit' - that is to say, for uses other than providing the resources needed to transfer/transform my donation into a place and form usable by the person I'd like to help. If any church takes part of a donation destined to an underprivileged one for funding the teaching/upkeep of their political domination, they are in fact exploiting the underprivileged, and treating them almost as hostages. This technique has been used many times in the past by many organisations, and condemned as the crime it is when discovered, but religion has been mysteriously exempt from a similar examination.
Christian religion began with a group of people who really did believe that Jesus was 'the anointed one', a claim that was punishable by death under then Judaic law if the pretender was not found 'fit' by the religious elders to fill the role of 'chosen by god' that was 'King' then. Jesus' "left wing" views were even more undesirable to the elders because the region, almost the Jewish people as a whole, were under the Roman boot (sandal) then; yet it is understandable that his teachings made a rather marked break with the tyranny of the times, almost as the 'hippy' movement was to the Vietnam war era. In any case, this movement preaching humility and peace had to spend its first years of existence in seclusion and hiding. The Christian doctrine in its first years followed Judaic law (Jesus in his entire lifetime had never a thought about starting a new religion), but the writ of Jesus' followers (real or 'spiritual'), and the follower's followers, soon became a sort of bible of their own. Jesus' reputation as a Ghandi-like resistant to the Roman occupier made stories of his life popular to an almost enslaved people; with this popularity came the corruption and the purposeful exploitation and misinterpretation of the original idea.
Even before the Christian religion had conquered a failing Rome seeking to regain the support of the already-converted masses, confusion had already set in. With the masses came political leadership, and the differing political views and motives of the christian leaders divided the faith into several factions: the Messianic Jews, for example, retained most everything from Judaic teachings in retaining their belief that Jesus was indeed the real messiah; Catholicism, the most aggressively political Christian faction, created a marked break with the rest of Christian teaching (while attempting to retain its followers) by adopting Mary Magdalene as the figurehead of their religion (although their real teachings, compared to those of Jesus' - hardly mention her). The latter faction was also responsible for effacing most every Pagan holiday under a 'new' Christian celebration (sometimes even blatantly 'invented' from other popular religions, such as the largely undocumented story of Jesus' birth being a carbon copy of that of Mythra - or even Moses'), and replacing every existing Pagan (or other) temple on Christian 'territory' with a temple or church.
I want to underline the fact that the source of the 'Christian fracture' was political motive, as was the corruption. Although many will contest the above (through 'deconstructionism' and arguments using selective facts), the pattern holds true to one recurring through all of humanity's history: the few leading (and reaping from) the many, and their efforts to keep their privileged position.
This tendency doesn't apply only to religion: once any sort of movement at all develops a leadership that depends (or counts on) those following a status quo of their dictate, and the leadership corrupts/perverts/adds to the the movement's original message to further their own ends, the idea behind the movement's origins take on much less importance. In fact, after a movement and its corrupted dogma conquers the majority of a society loathe to think outside of the status quo, any discussion about the 'original idea' hardly matters at all.
This leads in to economics. More later.
I'll add this here because it is in the same line with the rest - but it is a bit of a rant, as I was biting my tongue as I wrote the rest. I'd like to express my dismay - and disgust - that all that's done, 'positive' and negative, in religion's name.
First off, there are thousands of people today preaching exactly what Jesus did thousands of years ago. In fact, I'd say that most of his teachings are the moral status quo for most civilised society. Set that aside, and what do we have? Miracles. Miracles that are not only incredible (read the latter word in the "not credible" sense), but never seen by anyone but the most fervent of 'believers'. In short, religion today to most of us is as useful as a magician's mumbo-jumbo, as it might as well be all illusion.
So look at what is done in 'religion's name' today - persecution, wars and charity. Persecution and war are easy enough to condemn, but charity should be a much harder target to criticise - if it wasn't such a large source of income for many churches.
I of course subscribe to aiding the lesser privileged/resourced, but not if part of my donation will be taken as 'profit' - that is to say, for uses other than providing the resources needed to transfer/transform my donation into a place and form usable by the person I'd like to help. If any church takes part of a donation destined to an underprivileged one for funding the teaching/upkeep of their political domination, they are in fact exploiting the underprivileged, and treating them almost as hostages. This technique has been used many times in the past by many organisations, and condemned as the crime it is when discovered, but religion has been mysteriously exempt from a similar examination.
Monday, 28 December 2009
The problem with the "megapixels don't matter" myth.
I've seen some camera reviews and blogs rave over the quality of a camera because of the number of megapixels it has; I've seen others go to all lengths to deny the importance of megapixel density altogether. I have several problems with both positions because both often ignore certain elements that contribute to image sharpness, making an argument that is quite unscientific.
To accurately capture the quality of a certain aspect of digital - or any type of - photography, only the aspect being tested can change with each experiment. To make this clear, let's outline the tools and environment needed to capture a photo:
a) Subject and Lighting.
b) Lens.
c) Film plane (sensor).
d) Camera support.
d) ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, Focus, Distance from Subject (framing).
e) Post production (in-camera or none altogether).
g) Display (print or screen), calibration & resolution.
Rather obvious, no? If we are to effectively test the quality of a sensor against another, only the sensor should change between tests. This may be rather difficult in today's world where different products have accessories that change some or sometimes all of the other constants that would make for a scientific test, but the logic remains the same. Ken Rockwell uses this logic quite clearly in his camera testing by using the same lens, photo environment/technique and photo post-production (enlargement, cropping, etc.) in each comparison.
One aspect that most comparison-articles tend to neglect: Lens quality. A lens has 'grain' and sharpness, and if you ignore this fact in your testing, your comparison will be false - or at best, incomplete. Say, for example, you are using a not-so-sharp lens to compare sensors: If the maximum sharpness of one lens 'grain' covers more than one sensor pixel, it hardly matters how many more pixels you use to capture that (non-) sharpness, as even if the entire rest of the photo environment/technique remain the same, the result will appear the same.
Add to this neglect the method used to calculate pixel density (or a debunking thereof), and you will have a truly mislead reader. The 'megapixel' method should be ignored altogether, as it is not attainable/usable by the human mind, let alone photographers: we measure by perception and vague reckoning, and never by mathematical calculations of (dimension-undefined) area. We used to 'measure' grain density by a certain ISO 'constant' compared to the size of the film plane we were using, itself compared to the visibility of this combination in the final image (at its desired size). We have no way of isolating/including any of these elements of reason with just a single 'megapixel' number.
So, if you want to test a sensor between camera models, you're basically going to have to start ripping cameras apart and switching parts between them. Until a test of that sort occurs, I will continue to insist that pixel density does matter - but only if the rest of your camera/display environment can detect the difference too.
To accurately capture the quality of a certain aspect of digital - or any type of - photography, only the aspect being tested can change with each experiment. To make this clear, let's outline the tools and environment needed to capture a photo:
a) Subject and Lighting.
b) Lens.
c) Film plane (sensor).
d) Camera support.
d) ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, Focus, Distance from Subject (framing).
e) Post production (in-camera or none altogether).
g) Display (print or screen), calibration & resolution.
Rather obvious, no? If we are to effectively test the quality of a sensor against another, only the sensor should change between tests. This may be rather difficult in today's world where different products have accessories that change some or sometimes all of the other constants that would make for a scientific test, but the logic remains the same. Ken Rockwell uses this logic quite clearly in his camera testing by using the same lens, photo environment/technique and photo post-production (enlargement, cropping, etc.) in each comparison.
One aspect that most comparison-articles tend to neglect: Lens quality. A lens has 'grain' and sharpness, and if you ignore this fact in your testing, your comparison will be false - or at best, incomplete. Say, for example, you are using a not-so-sharp lens to compare sensors: If the maximum sharpness of one lens 'grain' covers more than one sensor pixel, it hardly matters how many more pixels you use to capture that (non-) sharpness, as even if the entire rest of the photo environment/technique remain the same, the result will appear the same.
Add to this neglect the method used to calculate pixel density (or a debunking thereof), and you will have a truly mislead reader. The 'megapixel' method should be ignored altogether, as it is not attainable/usable by the human mind, let alone photographers: we measure by perception and vague reckoning, and never by mathematical calculations of (dimension-undefined) area. We used to 'measure' grain density by a certain ISO 'constant' compared to the size of the film plane we were using, itself compared to the visibility of this combination in the final image (at its desired size). We have no way of isolating/including any of these elements of reason with just a single 'megapixel' number.
So, if you want to test a sensor between camera models, you're basically going to have to start ripping cameras apart and switching parts between them. Until a test of that sort occurs, I will continue to insist that pixel density does matter - but only if the rest of your camera/display environment can detect the difference too.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
The 'Pinhole effect' - revisited.
Something isn't sitting right with my model - the pinhole analogy was a good one, but the model I made upon it describes something that goes almost opposite to all the physics laws we know - I'm really trying to take the same pattern downwards beyond our scope of present understanding; it would be completely logical that the laws we know today are based upon 'smaller' variations of the phenomena we know today.
I'm still incertain, but a 'fast on slow' model seems to fit better. The lower the difference in interacting energies, the higher the force of attraction - just like gravity between two passing objects - and this would make sense on a model based on an 'inert' quid: increases in energy in the 'secondary flow' would end up 'farther away' from lower energy interactions (in both space and time) and their higher gravitational pull (in our dimension) - just like in any explosion: light, sound, debris. So I feel better thinking that all we see is a result of an energy interaction with a base inert energy (that will eventually return to an intert state) - but who's moving and who's not is relative, isn't it? Still, I'd rather think about it this way without throwing in an extra 'point of view' complication that wouldn't matter anyways.
I'm still incertain, but a 'fast on slow' model seems to fit better. The lower the difference in interacting energies, the higher the force of attraction - just like gravity between two passing objects - and this would make sense on a model based on an 'inert' quid: increases in energy in the 'secondary flow' would end up 'farther away' from lower energy interactions (in both space and time) and their higher gravitational pull (in our dimension) - just like in any explosion: light, sound, debris. So I feel better thinking that all we see is a result of an energy interaction with a base inert energy (that will eventually return to an intert state) - but who's moving and who's not is relative, isn't it? Still, I'd rather think about it this way without throwing in an extra 'point of view' complication that wouldn't matter anyways.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
The 'Negative Pinhole effect' - Tying it all together.
I had a hard time figuring out what was 'faster' - quarks or photons. In one model, if quarks were a result of an energy interaction where the 'secondary energy' was at a speed closest to the 'base energy speed', this would mean that photons were actually faster than quarks. This doesn't work for many reasons.
Instead, I'd like to think that the base particles we know (photons, electrons and quarks) gain their 'binding power' through their friction - or speed difference - with our universe's 'base energy' (I came up with the name 'quid' for this - I may be so bold as to use it later). Thus I remain with my initial model, in order of speed: quid, photons, electrons, and quarks.
Now, imagine a pinhole in a piece of paper, and a jet of air streaming through it. The air at the centre of the hole will be the practically unhindered fastest, and the air brushing against the paper towards the edge will be subject to a certain turbulence, thus slower. This fits even the models we know today, there is a certain attraction between the moving air and the paper: one of these phenomena we know as lift.
UPDATE:
I'm not so sure I like the above analogy. Only the 'attraction' created by the friction between inert and moving elements would be true, but even then: actually the paper would represent the fastest-moving material, and the flow through the centre of the hole the slowest... so maintain only the resistance between different speeds, that 'binding' power increases with difference in speeds between matter.
/UPDATE
Thus photons are the fastest thing we know, and would they somehow gain enough energy to match the speed of the field/base energy they are passing through, they essentially would... disappear. At least, to us.
On the other end of the spectrum, once an energy flow gains 'binding power' above a certain level, it ceases to become 'pure' energy, and becomes... energy-containing mass. From here on 'down' we can apply this model to all the laws we know today, but I'd still like to stress a marked difference between the base 'friction/bonding' phenomenon (gravity) and all other phenomena that may occur further down the scale of atomic construction (magnetism, electricity).
Now, why ever do these 'energy bonds' maintain their state, and why has the matter they created spread from a single point? Here, we have to return to dimensions.
Imagine an aquarium (a model fathomable by our minds incapable of imagining infinity) filled with an inert gas. Within, no matter which direction we go, at no matter what point in 'time', the substance remains the unchanged same, as we have no means of comparing our destination state/place to our point of departure. Thus, in essence, neither space nor time exist there.
Now, we introduce a brief jet of air (or other substance) into our arena according to the above model. The substance created by the disturbance would vary according to its distance from the point of injection. Let us assume that, for the moment, there is no element of time (as our 'base energy' encompasses this), but should we follow the 'building effect' the disturbance has caused, we would be in fact introducing the element of time. Thus a pinhole 'projection' into a timeless void would become a pinprick when the element of time is added; I think it is imaginable that any disturbance in the 'aquarium of space-time' would in fact create an almost infinite number of dimensions. It is important to stress here that our universe's 'base energy' (quid) remains omnipresent in all states of space and time.
So if an initial disturbance is 'projected' into a certain direction ('dimension'), the elements created therein will interact along that path while maintaining their initial state. 'More disturbed' energies would bond into quarks and hadrons (neutrons/protons), 'lesser disturbed' energies - charged but less-binding electrons - would bind to the first, and the 'practically undisturbed' energies that we know as photons would shoot ahead of the pack into space, as would the results of any other 'energy accelerations' created by the interaction of the base elements (positrons, electrons) that resulted. But we know this model already.
I would just like to add a thought about the different 'types' of quarks, electrons and photons we know: these may be just a result of different 'levels of friction' divided between 'spectrums of behaviour' - again, photons, electrons and quarks - that have a 'stable' centre state; energies above and below this stable state results in different 'flavours' of each element, but energetic interaction tends to result in (or 'gravitate towards) a stable state.
Thus I think that our universe, as we know it, occurred only once in our space-time. I'm not sure how it will all end, but according to present models it seems that all the elements we know will combine their energies enough to 'accelerate' to their initial state - quid - to disappear once again. This already seems to be happening within black holes.
Instead, I'd like to think that the base particles we know (photons, electrons and quarks) gain their 'binding power' through their friction - or speed difference - with our universe's 'base energy' (I came up with the name 'quid' for this - I may be so bold as to use it later). Thus I remain with my initial model, in order of speed: quid, photons, electrons, and quarks.
Now, imagine a pinhole in a piece of paper, and a jet of air streaming through it. The air at the centre of the hole will be the practically unhindered fastest, and the air brushing against the paper towards the edge will be subject to a certain turbulence, thus slower. This fits even the models we know today, there is a certain attraction between the moving air and the paper: one of these phenomena we know as lift.
UPDATE:
I'm not so sure I like the above analogy. Only the 'attraction' created by the friction between inert and moving elements would be true, but even then: actually the paper would represent the fastest-moving material, and the flow through the centre of the hole the slowest... so maintain only the resistance between different speeds, that 'binding' power increases with difference in speeds between matter.
/UPDATE
Thus photons are the fastest thing we know, and would they somehow gain enough energy to match the speed of the field/base energy they are passing through, they essentially would... disappear. At least, to us.
On the other end of the spectrum, once an energy flow gains 'binding power' above a certain level, it ceases to become 'pure' energy, and becomes... energy-containing mass. From here on 'down' we can apply this model to all the laws we know today, but I'd still like to stress a marked difference between the base 'friction/bonding' phenomenon (gravity) and all other phenomena that may occur further down the scale of atomic construction (magnetism, electricity).
Now, why ever do these 'energy bonds' maintain their state, and why has the matter they created spread from a single point? Here, we have to return to dimensions.
Imagine an aquarium (a model fathomable by our minds incapable of imagining infinity) filled with an inert gas. Within, no matter which direction we go, at no matter what point in 'time', the substance remains the unchanged same, as we have no means of comparing our destination state/place to our point of departure. Thus, in essence, neither space nor time exist there.
Now, we introduce a brief jet of air (or other substance) into our arena according to the above model. The substance created by the disturbance would vary according to its distance from the point of injection. Let us assume that, for the moment, there is no element of time (as our 'base energy' encompasses this), but should we follow the 'building effect' the disturbance has caused, we would be in fact introducing the element of time. Thus a pinhole 'projection' into a timeless void would become a pinprick when the element of time is added; I think it is imaginable that any disturbance in the 'aquarium of space-time' would in fact create an almost infinite number of dimensions. It is important to stress here that our universe's 'base energy' (quid) remains omnipresent in all states of space and time.
So if an initial disturbance is 'projected' into a certain direction ('dimension'), the elements created therein will interact along that path while maintaining their initial state. 'More disturbed' energies would bond into quarks and hadrons (neutrons/protons), 'lesser disturbed' energies - charged but less-binding electrons - would bind to the first, and the 'practically undisturbed' energies that we know as photons would shoot ahead of the pack into space, as would the results of any other 'energy accelerations' created by the interaction of the base elements (positrons, electrons) that resulted. But we know this model already.
I would just like to add a thought about the different 'types' of quarks, electrons and photons we know: these may be just a result of different 'levels of friction' divided between 'spectrums of behaviour' - again, photons, electrons and quarks - that have a 'stable' centre state; energies above and below this stable state results in different 'flavours' of each element, but energetic interaction tends to result in (or 'gravitate towards) a stable state.
Thus I think that our universe, as we know it, occurred only once in our space-time. I'm not sure how it will all end, but according to present models it seems that all the elements we know will combine their energies enough to 'accelerate' to their initial state - quid - to disappear once again. This already seems to be happening within black holes.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Update to come
I had to stop today because of a loss of perspective, not to mention because of a very high fever. I have yet to tie all this together - and yes, dimensions are coming back into the picture later - but for now it seems that my 'building block theorising' is centred around the phenomenon caused by the differnce in speed between one energy and another 'base energy' (matter) omnipresent in our galaxy. I'm still a bit surprised that in summary the 'speed spectrum' of the secondary 'riding' energy that makes the base building blocks of everything we know is very narrow - but I think this may also be the base of what we see as time, or in other words, what we see as our dimension. More later.
States of Acceleration.
Wait a second. Exactly the opposite to the 'slower' model could be true: what if the base 'speed' of this energy flow is 'nil' and everything faster than it resulting in forms detectable to us? No matter the direction, the differing speeds would result in a 'friction' that could be the source of the different forms of energy we know. But this doesn't sit right with me, probably because of my ingrained idea that the more mass an object has, the 'slower' it is.
In fact, 'faster' or 'slower' than what we know isn't important here: it's the difference in speed of, and 'friction' resulting from, - one energy flow and another. 'Faster' or 'slower' is just a matter of perspective. Hence what we would consider 'fastest' would be closest to our universe's 'base energy speed', and slowest would be the farthest from it. No matter how you look at it, the spectrum remains the same.
If I was to make a spectrum of 'flow' speeds, and this will most probably resemble much of what has already published in the scientific world, it would be, from fastest to slowest (or 'closest to the base' and 'farthest from the base'): Base energy, photon, electron, quark.
To the best of our knowledge, a photon is an electromagnetic force. I mentioned earlier that I sensed (or would like to sense) a common element in both sides of Einstein's equation: what if this element was the 'base flow' of our universe? What if a photon ('light'), as we know it, was a result of friction between one flow of energy and the common 'base flow'? Again, the 'speed' of one or the other wouldn't matter - it's the difference between the two.
The 'bonding' - or polarity - caused by the difference in speed of one force and another makes sense - and it could be the origin of all forces of attraction known to our universe.
Let me take this one step higher in the 'speed' scale. If a difference in speed between two flows becomes greater, the energy 'riding' the 'base flow' (at one point I'm going to have to find a name for this) increases in polarity, or 'magnetic energy'. Electrons fit this model, as they do have polarity. If a positively charged electron hits a negatively charged electron, they 'eliminate' each other and emit a photon (I'd like to think that they combine to form an accelerated form of energy - that photon).
Step the speed difference between two flows up another notch and the polarity power of the flow 'riding' the base flow increases to a point where it begins to bond with others with the same strength of attraction: this would be quarks. The polarity of the 'riding' and 'base flow' would result in the different types of quark we know today - namely 'up' quarks and 'down' quarks (and the other types we know about may just be variations in flow difference above or below the bonding 'speed') - and these in turn bond to form what we know as protons (two 'ups' and one 'down') and neutrons (two 'downs' and one 'up').
The rest is a matter of consequence: neutrons and protons combine to create atoms, the stability of which is determined by the equality of the interacting attraction of their nuclei and electrons. I'd like to think that the gravity of a mass is caused only by an accumulation of the 'central' polarity attraction of each atom, and that phenomena such as electricity, fusion, fission and magnetism are only a result, affected in only a secondary way by gravity, of the interaction of these base structures.
In fact, 'faster' or 'slower' than what we know isn't important here: it's the difference in speed of, and 'friction' resulting from, - one energy flow and another. 'Faster' or 'slower' is just a matter of perspective. Hence what we would consider 'fastest' would be closest to our universe's 'base energy speed', and slowest would be the farthest from it. No matter how you look at it, the spectrum remains the same.
If I was to make a spectrum of 'flow' speeds, and this will most probably resemble much of what has already published in the scientific world, it would be, from fastest to slowest (or 'closest to the base' and 'farthest from the base'): Base energy, photon, electron, quark.
To the best of our knowledge, a photon is an electromagnetic force. I mentioned earlier that I sensed (or would like to sense) a common element in both sides of Einstein's equation: what if this element was the 'base flow' of our universe? What if a photon ('light'), as we know it, was a result of friction between one flow of energy and the common 'base flow'? Again, the 'speed' of one or the other wouldn't matter - it's the difference between the two.
The 'bonding' - or polarity - caused by the difference in speed of one force and another makes sense - and it could be the origin of all forces of attraction known to our universe.
Let me take this one step higher in the 'speed' scale. If a difference in speed between two flows becomes greater, the energy 'riding' the 'base flow' (at one point I'm going to have to find a name for this) increases in polarity, or 'magnetic energy'. Electrons fit this model, as they do have polarity. If a positively charged electron hits a negatively charged electron, they 'eliminate' each other and emit a photon (I'd like to think that they combine to form an accelerated form of energy - that photon).
Step the speed difference between two flows up another notch and the polarity power of the flow 'riding' the base flow increases to a point where it begins to bond with others with the same strength of attraction: this would be quarks. The polarity of the 'riding' and 'base flow' would result in the different types of quark we know today - namely 'up' quarks and 'down' quarks (and the other types we know about may just be variations in flow difference above or below the bonding 'speed') - and these in turn bond to form what we know as protons (two 'ups' and one 'down') and neutrons (two 'downs' and one 'up').
The rest is a matter of consequence: neutrons and protons combine to create atoms, the stability of which is determined by the equality of the interacting attraction of their nuclei and electrons. I'd like to think that the gravity of a mass is caused only by an accumulation of the 'central' polarity attraction of each atom, and that phenomena such as electricity, fusion, fission and magnetism are only a result, affected in only a secondary way by gravity, of the interaction of these base structures.
Whoah bis.
I just felt a 'click' with my last post. Forget the concept of 'hot' at the first level: what if we reduced the model to one of 'speed'? If the base of our universe was an element moving too fast for us to detect it, and everything else built upon it that we could see 'slower', the difference between differing speeds could be the origin of what we call 'high energy' or 'heat'. This would also explain phenomena such as black holes if these were regions where, although they were created through a high accumulation of atom mass, forces became so dense that even atoms were reduced - thus accelerated - to their 'undetectable' base energy form and speed?
The above would also explain 'dark matter'.
The above would also explain 'dark matter'.
Whoah.
I had to take some time out from my "layman mullings" to do some research. Not only was I getting stuck into the thought-lines of my own "model", but I was (purposely?) Ignoring many facts about how bodies interact. Do try to understand that the whole point of all this is trying to find some ideas "outside of the box".
One of the subjects I looked up was atom structure, form and behaviour. Another was the composition of the universe - and there I found how few atoms there are in our universe compared to its size. This led to the subject of still-hypothetical "dark matter". Which only gives more fodder for thought.
I'm going to let go of the concept of 'dimensions' for the moment to just look at our own.
One thing that got me thinking was the 'cooling' aspect of the atomically composed part of our universe: if a, say, planet somehow strayed into outer space to a region free of all light and gravitational influence, it would eventually 'cool' to an almost inactive state; yet this would not be the case, as the planet, because of its mass (atom structure), has an energy of its own. Yet atoms tend to 'degrade', especially unstable ones; but degrade into what?
That question brought the 'energy flow' idea, and the idea that this flow was too 'fast' (or 'reduced') for us to detect, and the idea that most everything in our universe was built upon it. What would happen if we turned our idea of "hot" on its head, and thought along a model where this energy flow (and its 'speed') was a 'neutral state', and that everything slower than it becomes 'denser' and 'hotter' the slower it goes?
One of the subjects I looked up was atom structure, form and behaviour. Another was the composition of the universe - and there I found how few atoms there are in our universe compared to its size. This led to the subject of still-hypothetical "dark matter". Which only gives more fodder for thought.
I'm going to let go of the concept of 'dimensions' for the moment to just look at our own.
One thing that got me thinking was the 'cooling' aspect of the atomically composed part of our universe: if a, say, planet somehow strayed into outer space to a region free of all light and gravitational influence, it would eventually 'cool' to an almost inactive state; yet this would not be the case, as the planet, because of its mass (atom structure), has an energy of its own. Yet atoms tend to 'degrade', especially unstable ones; but degrade into what?
That question brought the 'energy flow' idea, and the idea that this flow was too 'fast' (or 'reduced') for us to detect, and the idea that most everything in our universe was built upon it. What would happen if we turned our idea of "hot" on its head, and thought along a model where this energy flow (and its 'speed') was a 'neutral state', and that everything slower than it becomes 'denser' and 'hotter' the slower it goes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)