I think this comment on another article is of relevance here.
One possible way of establishing frames of reference (eg. trying to explain the taste of an orange to someone who's never tasted a citrus fruit) is to figure out how to manually stimulate neurons (this does not necessarily involve brain-implants - maybe this can be done purely by meditation or something) and finding out which ones to stimulate for oranges and generic citrus fruit. Then, we could develop vocabulary that can be used to generalise combinations of simulated neurons, and from there, build a platform to intellectually venture deep into the realm of the psychedelic.
I mentioned in the parent-post that an atomic unit of a psychedelic experience might be a surreal juxtaposition. Maybe it's actually trying out something completely new for the first time (eg. a citrus fruit), or even something slightly new (eg. an Orange if you've already had another Citrus fruit), but this may just create a new memory rather than attempt to shift the train of thought outside of standard thought-patterns, so it will just be chalked up as a new experience rather than a psychedelic experience.
I've never taken any psychedelics myself (so I guess you could call me a psychedelic layperson), but have read several experiences from people who have. One of the things my brain tends to do during it's 'down-time' is to try and interpret these experiences (from the point of view of someone who's not had any first-hand psychedelic experiences) and using my knowledge of neural networks and other geeky things, to try and figure out what is really going on, and hopefully in the process, to figure out the nature of conciousness. I expect this is something I'm almost certainly not going to achieve by myself and it may take several generations until a purely intellectual link is found between the experiences of a deep trip and the realm of scientific and philosophic explanation. Basically, this is attempting to solve the problem by approaching it from the other end. People like Terence McKenna try their best to bring back what they experienced on their trips, but are limited by the lack of established concepts related to what they saw - hence they don't have the tools to properly communicate these things. Because of this, their interpretations tend to focus more on the spiritual side of things than the intellectual side. What people on this side of the 'psychedelic divide' are doing is to try and construct the prerequisite concepts required to properly interpret the ramblings of Terence McKenna
After reading the comments to this Slashdot article and comments posted on the linked articles, some people say it's the closest to a trip they've ever experienced on a purely visual level. Because the article attempts to make sense of what is going on, this could be an important step in developing means of communicating the content of the psychedelic realm. We could also see implications at the other end and figure out exactly what the brain does when tripping - a gold-mine of information for understanding how the brain works.
One thing I've often wondered: what is an antomic unit of a psychedelic experience? My current theory is that any surreal juxtaposition that can break the mind out of the boundaries imposed by the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis could end up displacing the mind in an unknown state, and possibly even create a feedback-loop trying to make sense of it. Perhaps when tripping, the mind is automatically bombarded by so many of these experiences that they may end up gaining insight into the Ultimate Secret of the Universe. Perhaps this is what people who are 'trying to find God' are trying to find. So we could say that God is hiding behind a certain yet-to-be-entertained juxtaposition.
Can someone who's actually had a trip please confirm if I'm on to something, or if I'm just talking out my arse?
Does anyone know if these images can be created in real-time? If so, demo-coders will pounce on the algorithm and have an absolute field-day! Demos will never quite be the same again. Another idea could be an easter-egg for a video-game where if the player has just ended a very intense gaming-session, the visuals of the frontend (even if only the background) could have this algorithm applied to them just to see if the player notices anything out of the ordinary (after a particularly intense session, this will be harder to spot immediately).
I know that training a neural network can take a very long time, but using it to recognise images can be done very quickly. If a standard CPU or GPU cannot do this in realtime, would the more dedicated demo-coders start creating their own FGASs / ASICs that are designed just for this task, and bringing their creations along to demoparties?
...when you visit a clickbait site such as Cracked.com, blocks all the "you may also be interested in" stuff so that you just see what you came to see and don't get distracted into visiting millions of other "10 signs you are a serial procrastinator, number 5 will turn your underwear into a war-zone" links?
So far, after Googling, I have only been able to find "Anti-Upworthy" which de-sensationalises the language of clickbait headlines, but ideally, I'd like to block the display of "you may also be interested in" stuff. And no, using a
My guess is that 5.0[sane] would be around the time they changed the extension system (ca. 10.0[insane]) to take into account the rapid release cycle breaking extensions that relied on a max version number. Internally, I can't off the top of my head think of what changed internally since 10.0[insane], but I'd guess the introduction of Australis (29.0[insane]) would make it 6.0[sane] (unless there was another really major change which would push the sane version number to 7.0 or even 8.0). So FF 30.0[insane] would be 6.1[sane].
Another way of doing it is that the major version number only changes when an ESR is branched off, and the minor version number corresponds to an insane-major-number. So 4->4, 10->5, 17->6, 24->7, so 30.0[insane] would be 7.6[sane].
Perhaps if we can work out what version number Firefox should have, we can encourage disgruntled Firefox users to refer to it by it's sane version, and hope this will catch on.
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)