The one cool thing about the Pope selection process

[sojourner]

I give up. Rama is the master of "missing the point".

[RAMA]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

I don't know what kind of top-end phone you're using, but I would scarcely call what typically shows up on a smartphone screen an "augmented" view. It's usually worse than what you can see with your own eyes, doubly so if the lighting is poor or you are zoomed in. The image becomes very "noisy" in a way your own vision does not.



Current CCDs are a lot better than they used to be, but they're still pretty craptacular in many ways. They're certainly no substitute for seeing something with your own eyes.

Actually, it does mean that, and he explained why.

Digital devices are not "extensions of human perception," they are multipurpose tools. My phone doesn't help me see, read, taste, smell, or touch anything better than I can on my own. What it can do is give me access to information, and yes, take photos and videos of things happening around me. As any kind of substitute for actual perception, though, it falls far short.

This technology is a bridge, info technology is a tool but like books they expand human capabilities, increasing our "RAM" as it were, but computers and phones are even better..they extend perception and they store it, even make it more accurate. I posted some information on such conclusions here before.

Yes, phones can augment...if you are further away from an event, you can zoom. They do in fact (indisputably) have capabilities we don't...even if eyes are still superior overall. Eyes are still imperfect however.

I must have abilities you guys don't because I can easily experience events and still use my phone/camera. Great for me!

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

I give up. Rama is the master of "missing the point".

David Brin and many experts "get it" you guys don't.

RAMA

[_C_]

This made me giggle.

Regarding the "capture the moment while you live it" aspect-- every Sunday, I stick my little Sony Bloggie in my choir folder. I made a little stand for it out of paper and cardboard so it's pretty inconspicuous. I film myself singing every Sunday and have a huge Youtube playlist of choir anthems for anyone who happens to stumble into them. What's great is I can play it back and listen to how my choir sounds(albeit with more sopranos since I'm a soprano, but I can hear the harmony). I used to think I'm not very expressive when I sing, but seeing myself on video let me realize that I was wrong, I'm emoting without being aware of it.

There are times where I do look at the camera while I'm singing. It's my way to connect with whoever happens to watch the videos. Here's one where I giggle at myself because of the faces I make when I'm singing, but we're totally NAILING the song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgEHauELpY8 (Mozart's "Ave Verum")

[sojourner]

RAMA wrote:

---

David Brin and many experts "get it" you guys don't.

RAMA

We get it. We've gotten all of it. We get it better than you do because we're not blinded by it.

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

I guarantee you the huge majority of people are not that worried about the quality of the picture and wouldn't take very good pics or video anyway

Then why bother?

You can experience something and have it be more enriching and longer lasting by what you recorded there, there is hardly any other reason to record many events except personal interest, so your idea doesn't make much sense.

It's not an idea, it's a documented phenomenon in photography. I get that you've never encountered this problem and therefore doubt its existence; my response is you probably need to get out from behind your computer and out into the biomass and see for yourself.

If you think using a phone at an event means the same thing as not being there and experiencing it then I simply feel sorry for you.

And I repeat: being at an event and WATCHING A VIDEO of an event are not the same thing.

And it is important to note that if all of your attention is on a 4 inch LCD screen on which you are trying to capture an event, then you are experiencing the event as a photographer, not as a witness. A larger portion of your attention is on the operation of your recording device than it is on the event that is actually being recorded.

As I've explained before a cell phone is an extension of human perception

And as I said then, no it isn't, not until/unless it can be physically hard-wired into the human brain and its input processed directly by the brain itself. Until then it is merely another object that humans perceive, in which case, if all of your attention is on the operation of a recording device, then your memory of the event is partially limited to that which is captured in the recording device.

The specific reason you doubt this is that you've been sitting behind your computer too long and haven't actually gone anywhere or seen anything yourself. Get out into some biomass, go to a concert, watch some sketch comedy at Second City or something, then come back and proselytize some more.

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

We get it. We've gotten all of it. We get it better than you do because we're not blinded by it.

I'm not blinded by anything, you're the one who won't even admit accelerated change exists. I'd say you're the 3rd or 4th most blinded person I've seen in this forum though I think you mean well. If you DID get it, you wouldn't be arguing about it. From what I see you guys are using some old, outdated arguments. As always, you'd rather stay comfortable with the status quo.

BTW I've posted on this subject in question long before the fact, you should look it up in the top 5 tech thread. Some good links there on extended reality/mind and distributed cognition and the like.

[RAMA]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Then why bother?

It's not an idea, it's a documented phenomenon in photography. I get that you've never encountered this problem and therefore doubt its existence; my response is you probably need to get out from behind your computer and out into the biomass and see for yourself.

And I repeat: being at an event and WATCHING A VIDEO of an event are not the same thing.

And it is important to note that if all of your attention is on a 4 inch LCD screen on which you are trying to capture an event, then you are experiencing the event as a photographer, not as a witness. A larger portion of your attention is on the operation of your recording device than it is on the event that is actually being recorded.

And as I said then, no it isn't, not until/unless it can be physically hard-wired into the human brain and its input processed directly by the brain itself. Until then it is merely another object that humans perceive, in which case, if all of your attention is on the operation of a recording device, then your memory of the event is partially limited to that which is captured in the recording device.

The specific reason you doubt this is that you've been sitting behind your computer too long and haven't actually gone anywhere or seen anything yourself. Get out into some biomass, go to a concert, watch some sketch comedy at Second City or something, then come back and proselytize some more.

TYVM for your opinion, but I'm an outdoorsy, beach, hiking, fitness person myself. I'm very comfortable behind the computer or elsewhere.

And again you are wrong, you don't need to be wired directly to the phone for distributed cognition, or extended mind. You don't need a computer for this strictly speaking, but of course it's capabilities enhance it.

[sojourner]

RAMA wrote:

---

you're the one who won't even admit accelerated change exists.

And this is where you keep. missing. the. point.

We do admit it exists. We just don't run off the deep end making unfounded assumptions that it's some kind of exponential curve that won't plateau.

[RoJoHen]

I'm all for recording events, but I feel if it's something this huge, like electing a new Pope, somebody else will already be recording it. There are likely many people getting paid decent money to record it, and their versions will look a helluva lot nicer than what I could record on my phone.

So in this case, I'd put my phone down and watch the event with my own eyes. If I want to watch it again later, it won't be hard to find video of the event.

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

And this is where you keep. missing. the. point.

We do admit it exists. We just don't run off the deep end making unfounded assumptions that it's some kind of exponential curve that won't plateau.

You actually DID say it did not exist...several times.

I also pointed out how exponentials can keep going and any plateaus are so far above what we have now they will make little difference to the end result. Those are concrete examples based on mathematics, but you choose not to believe them.

RAMA

[RAMA]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I'm all for recording events, but I feel if it's something this huge, like electing a new Pope, somebody else will already be recording it. There are likely many people getting paid decent money to record it, and their versions will look a helluva lot nicer than what I could record on my phone.

So in this case, I'd put my phone down and watch the event with my own eyes. If I want to watch it again later, it won't be hard to find video of the event.

Well you remember how maybe you or your friends wanted momentos from an event, or maybe your religious relative wanted them from a funeral or event? Well now you don't have to wait for the official documenter, you can capture it the way YOU want to and see how it matches your perception. Besides, I don't know about you, but I edit my own capture of reality, I don't exclusively look at my phone, therefore I get the best of both worlds.

[sojourner]

RAMA wrote:

---

You actually DID say it did not exist...several times.

I also pointed out how exponentials can keep going and any plateaus are so far above what we have now they will make little difference to the end result. Those are concrete examples based on mathematics, but you choose not to believe them.

RAMA

You need to re-read my post and think.

Also, any luck figuring out that multiquote feature?

[iguana_tonante]

What I get from this conversation is that RAMA have rather a poor, blurry, shallow experience of reality, probably because he sees everything through the lens of the "singularity".

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

And again you are wrong, you don't need to be wired directly to the phone for distributed cognition

Unless you're working from a non-standard (or meaningless) definition of "distributed cognition," yes you do. They keyword there is distributed. You can put fifty different monitors in front of you and wire them to fifty different cameras, but your point of cognition is not distributed to any of those cameras, nor the monitors they are connected to. Your cognition is extended to the cameras through your eyes, the same way you would perceive any ordinary event.

You might as well suggest that contact lenses are a form of cybernetics; at least in that sense you could BEGIN to make a case.