IndigoChild
Offline
Kyle, Tx
Jotie wrote:

I dislike spiritualism and that was so new-age I nearly died with mild frustration.
But to add to your hopes: ever imagined colors that we haven't seen before? Chances are that they exist.

Im sorry to have bothered you but everything I believe can be backed up and proven through mathematics and or science. I merely use the word spiritualism because its the easiest way for people to understand in general what I believe. New age? Hardly, this is all stuff that has been proposed long before we were even a notion in our parents heads and even thousands of years before.

Now back to colors If you take a look at various photographs as such.

Infrared:

High Dynamic Range:

Ultra Violet:

X-Ray:

These are just some examples of light that can not be seen with the naked human eye. I imagine the advancements in human genetics will allow this broad spectrum and this still, is only a fraction of the kind of light we know about.

There is a particular sea creature.
The Peacock Shrimp

The spectrum of light that this shrimp can see, please excuse the newage term, it can actually see your aura. It can see where your going to move before you, Scientists are baffled and can not explain how it knows before you do. Until they begin to explore 4th dimension and alternate realities.

float.bridges
Offline
Texas
PROTODOME wrote:

Everyone has this in some form. We learn by association of senses.

Not all of it is learned, however, as when we're born, all of our senses are one sense, and as we grow, the senses start to divide. A synesthete is a person whom the senses weren't completely divided. But now I wonder if peeps who get it from LSD, if it somehow glues senses back together.

EDIT: @IndigoChild, will we ever actually adapt into being able to witness these beautiful and unseen (by real human eyes) colors?

Last edited by float.bridges (Jul 28, 2013 4:57 pm)

IndigoChild
Offline
Kyle, Tx

Actually did a bit of research into developing psudo synesthesia. Unless your born with the real thing, you can not develop the real thing. Unless there is an advanced medical breakthrough in brain surgery or you can transmute your own brain. what a lot of people really have is psudo synesthesia . Various groups of people have conducted research and found a similar effect can be made to happen by training the brain. For example there are 7 notes. There are also 7 well known colors. so in a book you could change the colors of letters
A = Red
B = Orange
C = Yellow
D = Green
E = Blue
F = Indigo
G = Violet
When you read you begin to recognize those letters as their corresponding colors. The test subjects that were familiar with music theory and could identify notes would understand the music as the colors. With proper training you can develop synesthesia as an ability and even a tallent, but not a gift.

@float.bridges: Of course we will. The course of human evolution is increasingly more evident. I dont believe we evolved from a bacterium to a fish to a land creature to an ape to us now. No, evolution is defined as change. We have reached an apex in the technological advancement curve and our skills, abilities, knowlege has been increasing very rapidly. We are currently sitting at the begining of an era in which we evolve into an advanced form of human.

We see this all over the world. Even in america. DNA is being unlocked and more people are able to perceive the 4th dimension. More people are truly in tune with nature and can even speak with animals. The Japanese have super psychics and are developing schools for children with this ability to flourish.

We have only discovered a small fraction of what dna does and everyday there are more people unlocking the dormant aspects of their dna and awakening to new life. Without a doubt I believe there is a piece in there that will enable us to see these higher and lower spectrums.

Last edited by IndigoChild (Jul 28, 2013 5:09 pm)

float.bridges
Offline
Texas

That's really interesting. The few synesthetes I've met were born with it, and it's usually not the note itself that holds the color, but rather the voice/timbre/instrument that does.

IndigoChild, that's such a trip. I feel slightly more open-minded all of the sudden, ahaha

Last edited by float.bridges (Jul 28, 2013 5:15 pm)

alex_mauer
Offline
philly

i have it for letters/numbers/shapes - like most people's stories... i always thought EVERYONE had it until i was in my 20s... that's when i realized it was not normal

sleepytimejesse
Offline
Youngstown, OH
IndigoChild wrote:

For example there are 7 notes.

I'm gonna chime in and be that asshole for a minute:
There are 7 notes in the western scale, there are twelve notes in western music, but there are infinite possibilities lying between the notes we have decided upon. (see: microtonal music)

The rest of what you said was very interesting, I'm just a snob

IndigoChild
Offline
Kyle, Tx

I appreciate that input. I am glad you brought that up. Just like there are not only those 7 colors there are many many many other colors in between.

sleepytimejesse
Offline
Youngstown, OH

I misinterpreted you example usage, I perceived it as defining no more than 7, not restricting to only seven for the sake of example. Also, it never really mattered, it's the nyquil

On the fourth dimension, I have a couple physicist friends and we're always astounded by how much our disciplines coincide. The ideas of the fourth dimension are well complimented by the understanding of musical ideas and their various contexts, permutations (retrograde, inversion, retrograde inversion). These talks have led me to believe that musical composition, the planning of musical events across time and of the transformation of abstract chains of frequencies, is in fact an exercise in fourth dimensional understanding.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
sleepytimejesse wrote:

On the fourth dimension

What is the fourth dimension? Do you mean like a fourth spatial dimension, are you talking about spacetime, or about dimensions in general? If you were to think of a point or an element in music as a vector of the parameters that affect its percieved qualities, I think you'll agree that it would be bigger than a four-tuple. That has nothing to do with physics in particular in any way, though.

IndigoChild
Offline
Kyle, Tx

But it does. Everything is vibration including music.

sleepytimejesse
Offline
Youngstown, OH

That's what I'm sayin'. I'll try to explain myself better though.

The third dimension is a cross-section of the fourth dimension, and so on and so forth. If a second dimensional being were to see a third dimensional object cross through its plane, it would see something in front of it appear, grow wider, get thinner, and then disappear. We might see a fourth dimensional object crossing through our plane as something appearing, growing taller and wider, shrinking thinner and shorter, and disappearing entirely.

In this way, back to music, in the fourth dimension, every aspect of your music happens at once, and already exists, but you are creating that linear cross-section, which becomes the music another person plays/hears. You have looked ahead and back, considered many possibilities for this collection of frequencies, and how to transform them against themselves in ways that are pleasing or interesting, and in ways which, both aurally and mathematically, are harmonious.

This comes down to really just drawing a parallel between disciplines, music theory (counterpoint, in particular) and theoretical physics, which I admittedly know much less about, but have had much personal luck in understanding through drawing these parallels in conversation.

tldr:
Here's a video explaining this better than I can

Last edited by sleepytimejesse (Jul 28, 2013 8:59 pm)

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
IndigoChild wrote:

But it does. Everything is vibration including music.

Where did I say that it wasn't? I'm saying that the dimensionality of musical qualities is not a purely physical one. If we think of music purely as physical movement over time, it can of course be expressed in a four dimensional space, but that's quite obvious and musically useless.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
sleepytimejesse wrote:

That's what I'm sayin'. I'll try to explain myself better though.

The third dimension is a cross-section of the fourth dimension, and so on and so forth. If a second dimensional being were to see a third dimensional object cross through its plane, it would see something in front of it appear, grow wider, get thinner, and then disappear. We might see a fourth dimensional object crossing through our plane as something appearing, growing taller and wider, shrinking thinner and shorter, and disappearing entirely.

In this way, back to music, in the fourth dimension, every aspect of your music happens at once, and already exists, but you are creating that linear cross-section, which becomes the music another person plays/hears. You have looked ahead and back, considered many possibilities for this collection of frequencies, and how to transform them against themselves in ways that are pleasing or interesting, and in ways which, both aurally and mathematically, are harmonious.

This comes down to really just drawing a parallel between disciplines, music theory (counterpoint, in particular) and theoretical physics, which I admittedly know much less about, but have had much personal luck in understanding through drawing these parallels in conversation.

What a load of bullshit pseudoscience to say that time domain problems have you consider the state of the problem over time. It's not unique to music, and has no relation to theoretical physics more than any other spacetime problem, such as picking your nose or not pissing on the toilet seat.

EDIT: And yes, the n-1th dimension can be expressed as a cross-section of the nth dimension, but unless you are talking about a specific dimensionality there is no way for me to know what dimension you are talking about when referring to "the fourth dimension". There is no "the" fourth dimension in any general sense. From this explanation it seems like you are talking about spacetime, though.

Last edited by boomlinde (Jul 29, 2013 11:15 am)

float.bridges
Offline
Texas

Someone sounds a little hostile.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden

Just calling bullshit pseudoscience what it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
float.bridges wrote:

Not all of it is learned, however, as when we're born, all of our senses are one sense, and as we grow, the senses start to divide.

Is there a reputable source that can confirm this? Are you sure that you don't mean to say that our perception of our senses as distinctly different sources of input changes as we grow older?

float.bridges wrote:

A synesthete is a person whom the senses weren't completely divided.

Again, is this coming from a guy on the internet or is there verifiable research to confirm it?

float.bridges wrote:

@IndigoChild, will we ever actually adapt into being able to witness these beautiful and unseen (by real human eyes) colors?

Maybe through the use of technology or training, but as I can't see the evolutionary advantage a person with this ability would have over a person without it, I don't think we'll naturally evolve it anytime soon. That's my opinion.