Yourself?

we do too (think in binary). chemical/electrical signal on/off. neurons. K+ or Cl-? on. off. on. off.
quite lazy on the other points. too much to process. am bao en; ex-poured liquid.

i think there are no rules
because i believe there is an omnipotent God
barring the god-greater-than-God paradox, that belief does mean, for me at least, that all 'rules' are bendable.

visualize? in little circles, spheres and coloured bars?
that's a little sad.

and NO NO NO, the fourth dimension can be said to be time,
but thats theoretical
there is the 'nonexistent' mathematical fourth dimension too, and probably so on to infinity if mathematicians really can be bothered.
or are smart enough. (afterthought.)
i think all those imaginary experiences are in one way or another extrapolations of actual experience.
what would sex feel like. nice. what else. what you are told. how it is described. "nice" (so as not to be too graphic):
process: what have i experienced before that is 'nice'? have i experienced anything like it in a smaller scale? people are squishy, or at least look squishy.
so: squishy chocolate-y nice. just for an example. -like- this, -like- that.
perhaps paranoia, claustrophobia. imagine it.
its fear extrapolated, its the closed blinds of A Beautiful Mind, its the adrenaline of danger and/or competition, its darkness and a dank cupboard.
perhaps faith: belief in what we have never experienced, do not know.
i trust in my God like i trusted that my father would not drop me when he carried me, small.
the conception of a heaven and earth apart: they are like hazy circles of light in smoke, distinct and separate, with blackness (an inconceivable nothingness) in between-- yet it is so inadequate because i simply cannot conceive of two worlds coexisting without projecting them in the same mindspace.
again, we cannot conceive what we have not experienced, although we may imagine.

processing is not quite the issue here; its the wiring.
computers may outwit humans in chess, but they operate on what they were fed-- by humans.
in the same way humans can only operate on given data, although our wiring is infinitely more complex.
this is not to say that our minds are blank when we are born;
alright, perhaps 'experience' is not the right term. its more knowledge, whether innate (common consciousness?) or experienced.
but there is still that limit to how much we know.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts ... for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

otherblogs.
i think its a fascinating concept. my corner of the internet... is so inward in its facelessness.
its like an alternate universe, yesyes, not a new idea, but it still amazes me.
there are 16 blogs i frequent; 10 are from people i barely know-- the name, or the face, or a friend of a friend, or an exchanged word.
its so strange how you can communicate to so many nameless faceless people;
you know neither its extent nor its impact.
how you, as the audience, can identify so closely with such a disembodied character; its a blind communion of souls, throwing out a desperate line in the dark;
how you can look at a person-almost-a-stranger from a distance and think, i know what youre thinking.
almost frustrating in being one-directional, at the same time theres a perverse (voyeuristic?) pleasure in being silent and anonymous; a detached, all-seeing observer.
and sometimes, the profound difference between the online persona and the physical character. endlessly cryptic, mysterious.

ah yes, kenneth. nervous impulse voltage. do you learn that in JC?!!
its one of those (physical) things that constantly amaze me; i find it more inspiring than lofty mountains or what-have-you.

posted by inventing @ 7:57 pm