Doug sent me a link to a scholarly article that presents a very thought-provoking idea—in Science, there is a Blind Spot.
“…the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science—including biology and computational neuroscience—doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us, is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness…”
The Scientific Method assumes that observation during an experiment occurs outside of the experiment’s physical limits; scientists cannot make objective observations from within the experiment’s parameters. However, all observation of our Universe takes place within our Objective Experience of the Universe; we cannot step outside of our Reality to observe our Universe. Consequently, the Scientific Method cannot observe Consciousness; although science is getting closer:
Brain waves can be turned into recognizable speech with the aid of artificial speech algorithms. Science can observe Consciousness; science does not yet have the capacity to interpret Consciousness.
We cannot make objective observations of our own Consciousness.
We cannot observe the Soul. Many people doubt that the soul even exists. In my opinion, the presence of the Soul is what Scripture means in the phrase, “made in the image of the Creator:” The Imago Dei. We are created in the image of Jesus; although it is probably more accurate to say that Jesus was created in the image of humans. Jesus claimed to be the person of the Creator—this is only evident when reading Scripture in its original languages. When Jesus speaks of Himself in the phrase, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” in English, He is referring to the unpronounceable Name of the Creator YHWH—the answer given to Moses from the bush. The four consonants [English] correspond to four breath-sounds in Hebrew; ‘the Name of the Creator is the sound of our breathing.’
There are many Scriptural literalists that would find exception to the above paragraph. For them, the Imago Dei means that the Creator has 10 fingers, and 10 toes, and sits on a Heavenly Throne all day; and has a vague resemblance to Charleton Heston. I won’t bring up facial hair.
We have a Blind Spot.
Technically, the majority of people have at least two Blind Spots, one in each eye. The Blind Spot refers to the portion of the Retina where the Optic Nerve connects to the Retina. This portion of the Retina has no optical receptors and is unusable for translating light into electro-chemical energy.
So, how is it that most of us cannot detect these blind spots? Two reasons—one, the two eyes are set a distance apart from each other; consequently, the light that hits the two Retinas contain information received from two different perspectives; and the brain merges the two images, reducing the visual overlap. Two, the brain interprets the information it receives, and ‘cheats’—the brain ‘photoshops’ the image we see on the imaginary ‘monitor/flat screen’ located directly in front of our eyes.
What we sighted people ‘see’ is electro-chemical-information-translated-into-images-by-our-brains. However, there are no monitors in our brains. This is why no two people see exactly the same thing. Colors are translations of electro-chemical-information by our brains. What my nearsighted, astigmatic, cataract-containing eyes see, without my glasses, is far different from what my corrected-vision eyes see. Since my glasses need replacing, what I am seeing now will be different if I ever get around to replacing my glasses.
At present, when one walks around any group of people, one will see people staring at the screen of some sort of Internet-connected device. You may be reading these words on some Internet-connected device, part of the Internet of Things.
You are staring at a piece of glass, behind which are tiny electronic inventions that emit light. As in the candle in the above image, the reflected light from that candle on your screen travels through your corneas, through your lenses [where the image is inverted—why aren’t we all upside down?] where receptors in the retinas turn the perceived light into an electro-chemical signal that travels along your optic nerves into specific portions of your brains [portions that appear to be outwardly identical to other portions].
Once in your brain, those signals somehow create the ‘imaginary’ image of a visible world. People who are blind and people who choose to close their eyes to the world, confirm by sensation that the ‘imaginary’ world exists. I reach out my hand, and I can still feel, to a degree, the keys on my keyboard [neuropathy sucks]. Because I learned ‘touch-typing’ in high school, if I can find the F and J keys, I can produce some reasonable facsimile to words that are also on a screen on my desk.
But all of these images, including this one, are constructs of our brain. There is no ‘flat screen’ in your head.
Enough of that.
The above image came to me from my Dad’s mother, at some point, long ago. I have a vague recollection that the story was that I had some relative I’d never heard of, who worked for Disney. This was long before I ever thought I would have a career as an illustrator. I did some googling tonight and was surprised to discover—searches of years past didn’t provide any information—that Milt Kahl was one of Disney’s “Nine Old Men”— illustrators that had worked for Disney from ‘the beginning’. 1937 [the year on the calendar next to Goofy] was the year Snow White came out. My life having turned out the way it has, I like thinking that I have some history in common with someone at Disney—I never had the impression that the someone might be famous. Milt Kahl seems to have lived his life in California; my Grandmother never left Oregon. The “Milt” signature could be from a different Milt…
- Illustration Tip #7: The psd file and Digital Art
It may not be common knowledge that one does not need Adobe Photoshop to ‘photoshop’ images. One only needs a graphics program that can read psd files. The ‘magic’ in the psd file is that this file has the ones and zeroes in a formation that can create transparent layers. These transparent layers can be stacked to create new images that are independently alterable. All of my digital images are created using layered psd files; however, I only use Adobe Photoshop for specific tasks—tasks my usual programs aren’t able to accomplish.Transparent layers created from the original image
Once you digitize an image, the image becomes a ‘thing’. Scan a photograph, and the photograph becomes a digital ‘thing’, that can be manipulated to whatever degree you want. In the above image, I’ve taken the original Café image, and distorted it using a ‘skew’ distortion. I am then working with a parallelogram, rather than a rectangle. The parallelogram nature of the image gives the impression of ‘perspective’. I can then remove the separate characters from the ‘background’ and I can re-create them in a separated background layer. I could colorize each of the characters, so that they weren’t in black/white. The possibilities of this technique are almost endless.
I use two Paintshop Pro programs [versions 6 and 8] from the 90s for 95% of my work. Paintshop Pro is a lot like GIMP—an open source graphics program that has the same features as Paintshop Pro. Version 6 of PSP can use Bezier curves to create Vector images. I use Version 6 for drafting. These curved lines are versatile tools, once one gets the hang of thinking in terms of tangents. Version 8 does not include Bezier curves for whatever reason.
99% of my work uses Raster images. Raster images are ‘fixed-size’ images. One can shrink Raster images without pixilation; but enlarging Raster images can cause the stair-step outline that is obvious if the image has too few dots per inch. Vector images are actually mathematical constructs, rather than the lines one sees in the interface between monitor and computer language. It looks like a line, but it’s actually more like a GPS location at a tiny scale. One can enlarge Vector image all one wants to, and a line will remain a line, rather than a set of steps. Because the line only exists in the software one is using. The printed output can be very large.
Since I have never made the effort to learn how to shade a Vector image, I don’t use them. I’ve seen wonderfully shaded Vector images; I am an impatient student. I can create a Raster image at a high-resolution that will allow the image to be enlarged without Pixilation. A 600dpi image can be enlarged to 3x scale and still work well in a printer. 4x, depending upon the image. Printed images can usually work well at 200dpi; however, printers prefer 300pdi images.
The psd file for this image has 8 separate layers