If we're thinking about objects and obstacles as core elements, how might we think about the distance between them? Whether allocentric coordinates or egocentric vectors, there's still a unit of measure at work in perception, perhaps - and, if so, would that unit of measure itself be an object or an obstacle?
Very interesting the idea of middle-out architecture process. Somehow this inspires this thought: "if you give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime" ... if you teach a man to teach himself new skills, I'd like to think he'll eventually build a machine to solve for society's scarcity.
Yes, and I think we humans do exactly that -- we model objects in space, I tentatively think we the distance between objects as though one of them were a part of our own bodies, and otherwise I think we can measure distances in space "out there" by putting objects on a "to scale" map of sorts. Still all very tentative.
Also, if you put two objects into an egocentric spatial model, then you do get an estimate of the distance between them as a matter of course. But I think the brain processes space not so much in terms of distance as in terms of action: the "distance" between two things is the amount or kind of action/work it would take to get there, hence Dallas is a "three hour drive" from Austin.
I guess we are all trying to solve our scarcity problems as it is. Now if only we could understand the second-order effects of our solutions better!
If we're thinking about objects and obstacles as core elements, how might we think about the distance between them? Whether allocentric coordinates or egocentric vectors, there's still a unit of measure at work in perception, perhaps - and, if so, would that unit of measure itself be an object or an obstacle?
Very interesting the idea of middle-out architecture process. Somehow this inspires this thought: "if you give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime" ... if you teach a man to teach himself new skills, I'd like to think he'll eventually build a machine to solve for society's scarcity.
Yes, and I think we humans do exactly that -- we model objects in space, I tentatively think we the distance between objects as though one of them were a part of our own bodies, and otherwise I think we can measure distances in space "out there" by putting objects on a "to scale" map of sorts. Still all very tentative.
Also, if you put two objects into an egocentric spatial model, then you do get an estimate of the distance between them as a matter of course. But I think the brain processes space not so much in terms of distance as in terms of action: the "distance" between two things is the amount or kind of action/work it would take to get there, hence Dallas is a "three hour drive" from Austin.
I guess we are all trying to solve our scarcity problems as it is. Now if only we could understand the second-order effects of our solutions better!