Our Halloween Writing Contest is coming up soon. Start Writing! [ Dismiss ]
Home ยป Forum ยป Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Holy Daredevil, Batman!

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

In my current WIP, I'm positing that the introduction to magic lets those who have accepted it boost their senses and physical performance to the limits of human capacities even before they fully activate magical abilities. I think I've been misunderestimating us!

Over the course of 20 training sessions, which were about 2 to 3 hours long, researchers found that blind and sighted participants, both old and young, all improved considerably at click-based echolocation.

For weeks, participants were trained to navigate virtual mazes โ€“ corridors arranged in T-intersections, U bends, and zig-zags โ€“ and identify the size and orientation of objects using mouth clicks.

In the final two sessions, participants had their new navigation skills tested in a virtual maze they'd never tackled before. Even while blinded in this unknown environment, collisions were fewer than they had been at the start of the program.

Clearly, the echoes of their own clicks were helping people navigate the course with greater ease than before.

In fact, the authors found these newly trained echolocators performed nearly as well in the maze as seven expert echolocators, who had been using this skill for years.

In additional tests to determine the shape and orientation of certain surfaces, participants in the study actually performed equally to the experts.

helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

Emphasized by me:

participants were trained to navigate virtual mazes โ€“ corridors arranged in T-intersections, U bends, and zig-zags โ€“ and identify the size and orientation of objects using mouth clicks.

If the mazes were only virtual, how could there be echoes?

HM.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@helmut_meukel

Virtual sound of course.

Wuxia novel sites contain reams of novels with virtual reality games replete with all virtual senses in play.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Virtual sound of course.

But then:

In fact, the authors found these newly trained echolocators performed nearly as well in the maze as seven expert echolocators, who had been using this skill for years.

I assumed those experts were using echolocation in real life.
I doubt virtual sound is close enough to real world echoes. So experts in real world echolocating would have problems in virtual reality.
Or had those "experts" only VR experience?
Even then the software and data used to create virtual echoes will seriously influence the sound generated, making virtual echoes of a brick wall in 5' distance created bei two different systems quite different.

HM.

Replies:   JoeBobMack
JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

My understanding from the full article is that there was nothing "virtual" about the training and measurement of results. That is, it did not happen in a computer-generated environment. Instead, it was in mazes set up and used for this purpose, so they were real and tangible. I assume the misuse of "virtual" stems from some intention to distinguish such an experimental environment from "real world" settings.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

I think the confusion is Remus2 thinking this was part of a story when it's a link to a real experiment in human echo location to help the blind.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I think the confusion is Remus2 thinking this was part of a story when it's a link to a real experiment in human echo location to help the blind.

This was the OP, clearly stating it was part of his current work in progress, there was no confusion. The link was embedded in the last statement without comment.
If the OP wished to comment on the research in the link, it would have been much cleaner to directly state so.

In my current WIP, I'm positing that the introduction to magic lets those who have accepted it boost their senses and physical performance to the limits of human capacities even before they fully activate magical abilities. I think I've been misunderestimating us!

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

This was the OP, clearly stating it was part of his current work in progress, there was no confusion. The link was embedded in the last statement without comment.
If the OP wished to comment on the research in the link, it would have been much cleaner to directly state so.

In my current WIP, I'm positing that the introduction to magic lets those who have accepted it boost their senses and physical performance to the limits of human capacities even before they fully activate magical abilities. I think I've been misunderestimating us!

I don't see anything in that quote from the op about echo location in his WIP

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

Weird. Missed that! I assume it is a misuse of "virtual" much the way "literally" gets abused so much these days.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

If the mazes were only virtual, how could there be echoes?

They weren't actually a maze, they were networks of corridors. 'Virtual' here has the connotation 'not strictly'.

However that raises a consequent issue. A maze has an entry and a endpoint or target. What was the target objective of the trainees, or was it just to wander around and not collide with anything?

AJ

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

Reading the article, I think the "virtual" here refers to them building mazes with movable temporary partitions so that the maze was different for each run. This prevents the participants from running the maze quickly by memorizing the maze layout.

The usage may be correct by the older non-computing meanings of virtual.

Pixy ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

I remember watching a program on TV about this years ago, and the main focus was on a totally blind chap who quite happily went out riding his pedal bike!!! I can't even ride a bike WITH sight...LOL

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Pixy

I don't know if I can find cites, but I also recall reading similar stories years ago. However, IIRC, those were about individual blind people who developed their own system for echo location. This experiment is the first I can recall seeing about an effort to teach humans to echo locate.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Remus2
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

This experiment is the first I can recall seeing about an effort to teach humans to echo locate.

I think some blind people qualify as humans too ;-)

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

I think some blind people qualify as humans too ;-)

Nowhere did I claim, or come with in a dozen light years of implying, that it was otherwise.

There is however, a big difference between a few individuals self-teaching echo location and a systematic effort to train people to echo locate.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

people

Twelve blind and fourteen sighted.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Twelve blind and fourteen sighted.

That's the experiment cited.

When I talked about "individual blind people" I was referring to human interest pieces going back as much as two decades about singular blind individuals who had developed the ability/skill to echo locate with no outside training.

ETA: As I read the cited article, the experiment wasn't just about human echo location, it was about teaching the participants a system for doing echo location.

A major goal of the experiment was that if the system could be proved to work, they could push for wide spread echo location training for the blind.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I recall seeing an episode of "In search of" with Lenard Nimoy that covered the subject.
The premise has been around for decades, the only new part is the idea of developing a systematic approach to teaching it to the public.
I say the public because there are some Special Operation forces training for doing it. For them, it was not about blindness, but finding there way around in the dark without use of night optical devices.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

the only new part is the idea of developing a systematic approach to teaching it to the public.

Agreed, but I would suggest that that part is potentially important.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

virtual

It is difficult to associate Al with Virtu. There are lots of ALs. Albert, Alfred, Al X and her. Even Al e gory. Or Al Gore.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Al Gore.

Al Gore has no rhythm. :)

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

In a probably doomed attempt to get this thread to where I hoped it would go before the article's inartful use of "virtual" took us sideways, I'm just intrigued by the possibilities of stories using the idea of humans at maximum capabilities, operating at the boundaries of current human capacity, physical, cognitive, and emotional.

As another example of what's possible, I've seen a story, though I can't find it now, about a person whose mechanisms in the inner ear had been destroyed by disease. She couldn't stand or walk. Researchers rigged a helmet with a gyroscope linked to a tongue depressor on an articulated arm. She'd wear the device and the tongue depressor would push on her tongue according to how her body tilted. She re-learned how to stand and walk. But, she could also still do it for a while after the helmet was removed. Eventually, she didn't need the helmet. She had learned to sense her balance even though the inner ear mechanism thought to be essential for this function was gone! What is "peak human performance"?

Replies:   Remus2  Paladin_HGWT
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

operating at the boundaries of current human capacity, physical, cognitive, and emotional.
-----
What is "peak human performance"?

I believe the answer to that is mostly subjective.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I believe the answer to that is mostly subjective.

It depends on how you are asking the question. Certainly cognitive and emotional are subjective. We simply don't have good enough definitions of those things for objective measurement.

Only the other hand questions like "what is the maximum visual acuity that can be achieved by the human eye?" or "what is the maximum sensitivity of the human ear?" more likely than not have objective answers.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Dominions Son

Only the other hand questions like "what is the maximum visual acuity that can be achieved by the human eye?" or "what is the maximum sensitivity of the human ear?" more likely than not have objective answers.

More likely than not?

If it is objective, there is no "more likely than not." So which is it?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

If it is objective, there is no "more likely than not." So which is it?

I expect that they have objective answers based on physics and physiology. However, I don't have the first hand knowledge to know for sure so I qualified my answer.

I think it highly unlikely such questions don't have objective answers.

Replies:   LupusDei  Remus2
LupusDei ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The objective answer about eyes is complicated to the extreme by the brain. Trick is, the optical system we have is rather week, really, but human perceived vision is masterpiece of computational photography. There's massive amounts of information collection and processing going on. Eyes are always in motion, we never perceive single frame the way we think about photography. Thus the comparison is very difficult.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

"I think" it highly unlikely such questions don't have objective answers.

So in the end, you asserted your opinion as if it was a fact.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

So in the end, you asserted your opinion as if it was a fact.

No, I asserted my opinion as my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Paladin_HGWT ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@JoeBobMack

I'm just intrigued by the possibilities of stories using the idea of humans at maximum capabilities, operating at the boundaries of current human capacity, physical, cognitive, and emotional.

What are the "Maximum Capabilities" of human being?

I doubt that "science" nor scientists know.

The modern Olympics began some 125 years ago. Before the "Great War" (World War One 1914-1918) there were some very good athletes, but I am not aware of any Extraordinary athletes. Many of the Olympic competitors were military officers. Events, such as the Pentathlon (Running, Swimming, Horse Riding, Fencing and Pistol shooting) were based upon military skills. Fencing, shooting, and many of the athletic events were dominated by athletes who were also serving officers in their nation's armed forces.

After the Second World War the IOC (International Olympic Committee) made rules that were intended to limit the Olympics to "Amateur" athletes. These rules were intended to eliminate (most) military or naval officers, as well as professional athletes, such as members of the Premiere League footballers, the PGA golfers, MBA basketball players, and MLB baseball players, etc. However, the communist nations, and some other nations fielded state sponsored athletes. This resulted in some extraordinary, although hyper-specialized, athletes. Money is a significant factor in the development of these athletes. In many cases it was Government money, spent mostly for the prestige of the "records set" and "medals won" by the nation/Government seemingly more important than individual achievements. In Western nations some individuals with extraordinary potential benefited from wealthy patrons in their early teen years, or even younger. "Good fortune" allowed an extraordinary few youths to receive intensive training, diet, and other methods of development to become Olympic competitors.

A hundred years ago the military Olympians were mostly wealthy individuals, such as Lieutenant George S. Patton Jr., who were allowed the time to prepare and compete in the Olympics, but did so without any particular assistance from their governments. In the 1930's science and "pseudo-sciences" focused on human development began getting state (government) interest. There had been some dabbling since the 1800's. During World War Two there had been some government/military interest in developing "elite" or "Super Soldiers" but most of this was more erratic than systematic.

The USA and, to a lesser degree, the UK, had some flings at "developing a superior soldier" but devoted more resources, and had more successes in developing superior equipment and rations. Nutrition, physical fitness and training, and equipment development had been an interest since the early 1800's; however, material sciences and industrial production to mass produce such material didn't exist until WWII. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, among others, dabbled in developing "Super Soldiers" or at least superior soldiers; however, much of this was twisted in myths of "racial superiority" or political dogma.

On a side note. During WWII US Army General SLA Marshal who was just supposed to be a historian, began research into the experiences of soldiers in frontline combat. Particularly Fear and Fatigue. While a rational person experiences some fear in danger, an unprepared person is much more likely to suffer greater fear. People can be trained to cope with stresses, and minimize fear. Combat is both physically and emotionally wearing; unnecessary burdens and/or exertions are likely to make people more vulnerable to emotional stress. Fear almost always results in reduced physical abilities. LTC Dave Grossman and others have made further studies beyond the observations of SLA Marshal.

(Tangent: SLA Marshal consulted with a US Army Medical Doctor about his theories of the relationship of Fear & Fatigue, and that proper training, and practical limits on weight of gear could improve soldiers performance. The doctor not only agreed with him, he told Marshal that if knowledgeable doctors were allowed to select the soldiers, AND those soldiers were only allowed to eat a scientifically developed diet it would multiple the beneficial effects of appropriate and realistic training and equipping of the soldiers.)

In any particular year, in the NFL there are some 1500 athletes playing American football, and a similar number in the Premier League playing soccer. 3,000 men drawn from a high fraction of the worlds population, and not all of them are at the same level. In any given year there are fewer than 20, perhaps fewer than a dozen men who a "Champion level" Quarterbacks. Similarly, Olympic Champions are fewer than One-in-a-Million human beings; nearly all of those champions are hyper-specialized.

Is that the limit of human potential? No!

The US armed forces have been on a trajectory since the 1930's of scientifically selecting, developing, training, feeding, and in other ways preparing and equipping their soldiers (sailors, Marines, aviators) for combat. Obviously far from perfect. By the late 1980's the USA had developed extraordinary military and naval capabilities; although not noticeably that different from their NATO Allies, nor even their Warsaw Pact opponents. Until, Desert Storm. The UK could field perhaps a dozen similar Battalion sized units, compared to the USA's 100 or so US Army and USMC (note these are Not all of either nation's armed force, just the units of superior quality that can be fielded; nor were all of those superior units involved in Desert Storm. The USA had probably 70 in theater and the Brits 6 to 8). Air Force and naval capabilities are of a similar nature. The UK has a couple of hundred individuals in the SAS and SBS, etc. compared to the thousands (many thousands) of "First Tier Operators" throughout USSOCOM. {The UK, Canada, Australia most benefit from extremely close relationships, in particular in the Special Operations community.}

Yes, South Korea, the Netherlands, the Scandinavians, French, the Israelis, and several other nations, not the least of which is the PLA of communist China also field competent armed forces, and well trained and equipped Special Operations forces. None come anywhere close to the results that can be achieved through "Cubic Money" honed by decades of combat and other operations. Money isn't everything, however, in the words of Soviet Marshal Zhukov, "Quantity has a Quality all its own." That does not mean that a unit of Chinese soldiers cannot defeat a similar sized US force. Nor does it mean the USA may achieve its political objectives with military force. The Finest Sword cannot repair a broken window, nor stem a flood.

The USA can select from a vast pool of volunteers, not just from the USA. Medical physiological and phycological examinations and development, a (generally) healthy diet, physical conditioning and other realistic training results in individuals who can perform a multitude of athletic feats of Olympic caliber, in addition to their military skills, also, many have language, cultural, medical, and other skills similarly developed. Although much of it is "Open Source" most people in the USA, or elsewhere, truly know, let alone Understand what many members of USSOCOM are capable of.

We are no where near the peak of what we are capable of, yet a very small percentage of us have developed nearly as much as they could. However, over the last hundred years the US armed forces have demonstrated that with good training and material even ordinary people may be developed to a much higher potential; and merely above average people may be developed to near "Olympic caliber" with a significant commitment of resources. According to the song: "Only Three Percent of those who test today will become Green Berets." It's more like 25% to 30%, since a bit more than half the people who apply for selection eventually pass; and a similar percentage will eventually pass the "Q-Course"

...Realistically, if we did not wish our Special Forces to be so "elite" a greater percentage of people could be trained to pass the standards!

I was never an "Operator" although I did serve in SOCOM. I witnessed the capabilities of these individuals at close hand (not just their combat abilities). During my career I did complete quite a few training courses, some of them quite intense. "Better Men" than I failed those courses, most often by quitting. By better I mean stronger, fitter, more athletic, etc.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Paladin_HGWT

What are the "Maximum Capabilities" of human being?

I doubt that "science" nor scientists know.

This I have to agree with.

A baseline would need to be created to determine a minimum or maximum. That baseline would easily be destroyed by the outliers of humanity.

Sherpas for living day to day in atmospheric conditions that would kill average humans. Inuit people for body fat content that would kill most other humans. All of which are before the people that can do things that defy supposed human limits.

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.