From website: "We use the term vibrations now as well, and it hasn't changed much in terms of its meaning. It still conjures up images of invisible rays of energy flying through the air and influencing people in various ways. For instance, we know what happens when we get "vibed" by someone. It means to encounter anger, a cold shoulder, an inhospitable response. But it also suggests more than just the outer expressions of emotion, as evidenced only by gestures or words."
Three physical things
(1) OK, in physics a ray is usually something like light. It's measurable, and it's measurable with pretty simple equipment, you can use photographic paper and stuff like that to "pick it up."
(2) Mechanical vibrations are also pretty easy to pick up - use a seismograph or something like that.
(3) Electromagnetic vibrations - that's what radio's pick up.
So first thing is to just accept the hippie vibrations are something else, not just the physics definition.
So how is a (hippie) vibe transmitted really? You take in information about the whole person. The sound of the voice (pitch and tamper), the way the joints are moving, posture, the actual words, the meaning, the phrasing, haircut, facial expression (muscles of the face), all of that stuff. It's all processed in a fraction of a second without you even knowing it. You have a high speed computer of sorts in your head that processes all of this on its own. It even goes into your mind and affects you. Like being around a happy person is more likely to make you happen. All of that goes on based on the dynamics in your brain, which is interpreting signals and adjusting both your perception of the person and your own mood.
So what I'm saying is that the vibe is sort of a signal, but it's very complicated to generate and detect (not hard for a human, but it would be hard to make another machine that does it). That's why you use motion capture for good 3D movies - you want to capture the way real people (actors) move - it's very hard to fake it with simple algorithms. It feels natural and easy because the brain (the deeper parts that you are not aware of) take care of all the work.
I'm reading this website and I tend to agree with the way that it models human interaction with physical analogies and stuff:
http://www.lightfigures.com/goodvibrationspeople/index.php?p=4
However, I have to say, it's dangerous to do too much with the analogy.
Example:
"For instance, they say that after a few years couples often start acting and speaking like one another. This is because their energy fields are constantly inter‑mingling. They become very sympathetic in terms of their vibrational patterns, and some will tell you that they know what their partner will say before they actually verbalize it. In extreme cases of auric resonance, they may even begin to resemble each other physically."
OK, if you have two bells, this is exactly describing what happens in terms of mechanical vibrations. (Number 2 above.)
But with people this is really what's happening:
(1) Acting like one another. This is because they are observing each other constantly and learning behaviors from each other. Humans do it. Apes do it. It's neurological, and it's an instinct. To say it's a vibration is not really scientifically accurate.
(2) Knowing what their partner will say. This is because the human brain has awesome predictive ability. In order to make the predictions, it needs sufficient "training" data, which comes from spending a lot of time with a person. Computer science is currently doing stuff analogous to this, machine learning, etc. - sometimes inspired by how the brain is configured.
(3) Resemble each other physically? That won't really happen except for certain cases. Like people who stay out in the sun together will both eventually get leathery tan skin (I've seen that). People who are both goth will start to both dress like goth, etc. However, stuff like bone structure will not spontaneously modify to bring them into sync.
Anyway, the principles taught are really valuable. I can see that. It's just strange that people who talk about this often don't keep everything "scientifically" accurate and rigorous. You actually could if you wanted, and pretty much teach the same thing I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment