Text
April 27, 2013
56 notes

argh, sorry, one last mini-rant re: poverty

Let me clarify one last thing: to poor folks, “rich” doesn’t necessarily mean “Scrooge McDuck swimming in gold”-level opulence. To me personally, being rich means:

  • being able to afford fresh food on a regular basis
  • being able to pay all your bills on time
  • being able to fix your car when it needs it instead of delaying repairs
  • being able to afford any kind of professional equipment, be it computers or pencils or typewriter ribbons or whatever, without having to take the funds from another regular commitment like bills
  • not worrying about having to go into bankruptcy when you get sick
  • not worrying about getting sick
  • not dreaming every other night about being short on money or being stranded somewhere with your account in the negative
  • not having to write checks or send payments based on the time it takes for your paycheck to be credited and the payment to be debited

To me, a salary of $25,000 is stinking rich, and I would absolutely love even to break the $20,000 mark. That is the perspective I come from when I talk about being “rich enough” or joke about being “white enough” to afford things others take for granted. That’s it.

Tags: quibbles poverty perception also because I know some buffoons will think I'm saying Geneva is richer than me I know she isn't and she's coming from the same place I am crossed wires is all that happened last night

Photo
January 12, 2013
256 notes
oldmanyellsatcloud: neurosciencestuff: Researchers Find Causality in the Eye of the Beholder We rely on our visual system more heavily than previously thought in determining the causality of events. A team of researchers has shown that, in making judgments about causality, we don’t always need to use cognitive reasoning. In some cases, our visual brain—the brain areas that process what the eyes sense—can make these judgments rapidly and automatically. The study appears in the latest issue of the journal Current Biology. “Our study reveals that causality can be computed at an early level in the visual system,” said Martin Rolfs, who conducted much of the research as a post-doctoral fellow in NYU’s Department of Psychology. “This finding ends a long-standing debate over how some visual events are processed: we show that our eyes can quickly make assessments about cause-and-effect—without the help of our cognitive systems.” Rolfs is currently a research group leader at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology of Berlin’s Humboldt University. The study’s other co-authors were Michael Dambacher, post-doctoral researcher at the universities of Potsdam and Konstanz, and Patrick Cavanagh, professor at Université Paris Descartes. We frequently make rapid judgments of causality (“The ball knocked the glass off the table”), animacy (“Look out, that thing is alive!”), or intention (“He meant to help her”). These judgments are complex enough that many believe that substantial cognitive reasoning is required—we need our brains to tell us what our eyes have seen. However, some judgments are so rapid and effortless that they “feel” perceptual – we can make them using only our visual systems, with no thinking required. It is not yet clear which judgments require significant cognitive processing and which may be mediated solely by our visual system. In the Current Biology study, the researchers investigated one of these—causality judgments—in an effort to better understand the division of labor between visual and cognitive processes. Oh man, thats actually a super critical neurocognitive distinction, considering that this might imply WHY we might think so little upon what we see and observe in objects as well as other people…and in turn, the opinions we form. Gotta keep an eye out for future research into more specific examples on this.

oldmanyellsatcloud:

neurosciencestuff:

Researchers Find Causality in the Eye of the Beholder

We rely on our visual system more heavily than previously thought in determining the causality of events. A team of researchers has shown that, in making judgments about causality, we don’t always need to use cognitive reasoning. In some cases, our visual brain—the brain areas that process what the eyes sense—can make these judgments rapidly and automatically.

The study appears in the latest issue of the journal Current Biology.

“Our study reveals that causality can be computed at an early level in the visual system,” said Martin Rolfs, who conducted much of the research as a post-doctoral fellow in NYU’s Department of Psychology. “This finding ends a long-standing debate over how some visual events are processed: we show that our eyes can quickly make assessments about cause-and-effect—without the help of our cognitive systems.”

Rolfs is currently a research group leader at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology of Berlin’s Humboldt University. The study’s other co-authors were Michael Dambacher, post-doctoral researcher at the universities of Potsdam and Konstanz, and Patrick Cavanagh, professor at Université Paris Descartes.

We frequently make rapid judgments of causality (“The ball knocked the glass off the table”), animacy (“Look out, that thing is alive!”), or intention (“He meant to help her”). These judgments are complex enough that many believe that substantial cognitive reasoning is required—we need our brains to tell us what our eyes have seen. However, some judgments are so rapid and effortless that they “feel” perceptual – we can make them using only our visual systems, with no thinking required.

It is not yet clear which judgments require significant cognitive processing and which may be mediated solely by our visual system. In the Current Biology study, the researchers investigated one of these—causality judgments—in an effort to better understand the division of labor between visual and cognitive processes.

Oh man, thats actually a super critical neurocognitive distinction, considering that this might imply WHY we might think so little upon what we see and observe in objects as well as other people…and in turn, the opinions we form.

Gotta keep an eye out for future research into more specific examples on this.

Tags: cognition empathy perception POV neuroscience neurology reblog quibbles

Photo
August 07, 2012
123 notes
Disney researchers add sense of touch to augmented reality applications  Technology developed by Disney Research, Pittsburgh, makes it possible to change the feel of real-world surfaces and objects, including touch-screens, walls, furniture, wooden or plastic objects, without requiring users to wear special gloves or use force-feedback devices. Surfaces are not altered with actuators and require little if any instrumentation.  Instead, Disney researchers employ a newly discovered physical phenomenon called reverse electrovibration to create the illusion of changing textures as the user’s fingers sweep across a surface. A weak electrical signal, which can be applied imperceptibly anywhere on the user’s body, creates an oscillating electrical field around the user’s fingers that is responsible for the tactile feedback. The technology, called REVEL, could be used to create “please touch” museum displays, add haptic feedback to games, apply texture to projected images on surfaces of any size and shape, provide customized directions on walls for people with visual disabilities and enhance other applications of augmented reality.

Disney researchers add sense of touch to augmented reality applications 

Technology developed by Disney Research, Pittsburgh, makes it possible to change the feel of real-world surfaces and objects, including touch-screens, walls, furniture, wooden or plastic objects, without requiring users to wear special gloves or use force-feedback devices. Surfaces are not altered with actuators and require little if any instrumentation. 

Instead, Disney researchers employ a newly discovered physical phenomenon called reverse electrovibration to create the illusion of changing textures as the user’s fingers sweep across a surface. A weak electrical signal, which can be applied imperceptibly anywhere on the user’s body, creates an oscillating electrical field around the user’s fingers that is responsible for the tactile feedback.

The technology, called REVEL, could be used to create “please touch” museum displays, add haptic feedback to games, apply texture to projected images on surfaces of any size and shape, provide customized directions on walls for people with visual disabilities and enhance other applications of augmented reality.

(Source: neurosciencestuff, via atnervesend)

Tags: brain illusions neuroscience perception psychology science touch vision tactile technology tech quibbles