Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:17:34 UTC No. 16272443

ikr are they even really human at that point

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:21:12 UTC No. 16272449

too little information

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:21:38 UTC No. 16272450

>>16272449
found one

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:27:19 UTC No. 16272454

>>16272431
Those are not shapes, they're pixels

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:28:11 UTC No. 16272455

>>16272431
they arent the same shape.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:30:09 UTC No. 16272457

>>16272450
nigga, a cube could be hidden behind the shape on the right

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:32:50 UTC No. 16272460

>>16272457
Correct.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:33:40 UTC No. 16272461

you cant know if they're the same shape

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:35:02 UTC No. 16272463

>>16272461
This. It's literally an unsolvable problem, just like the riemann hypothesis

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:20:00 UTC No. 16272489

They are enantiomers

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:17:42 UTC No. 16272696

>>16272457
>behind the shape
so you made the assumption that the shape is a 3D object but are unwilling to make an assumption about the shapes 3D structure?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:20:38 UTC No. 16272698

>>16272696
If you have to make random assumptions, it goes from being math/logic to being psychology and philosophy

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:15:21 UTC No. 16272728

>>16272698
You have never read a philosophy or psychology paper in your life
>>16272696
The existence of shadows heavily imply its 3d nature. Nothing implies that there isn't a qube behind the structure.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:20:32 UTC No. 16272729

>>16272728
>reading a paper of philosophy

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:44 UTC No. 16272730

>>16272449
there are jews hiding behind left shape

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:43:22 UTC No. 16272739

>>16272431
I don't need to see the shapes in my mind. In fact I can't. Yet I know they're the same shape. Because I can physically rotate one.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:50:53 UTC No. 16272745

>>16272728
>The existence of shadows heavily imply its 3d nature. Nothing implies that there isn't a qube behind the structure.
moving the goalpost.
maybe you find an omnipotent god behind the structure.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:04:09 UTC No. 16272762

>>16272431
Im more of a camera and less of an image editor, i can form the object in my mind in 4k resolution but rotating it more than 90 degrees makes it vanish

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:43:45 UTC No. 16272945

>>16272762
Congrats on your 105IQ

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:48:58 UTC No. 16272955

>>16272762
this isn't even a hard one, the trickier ones have rotations along 3 different axes

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:21:24 UTC No. 16272997

>>16272955
>"people" find telling if two shapes are the same shape "tricky"

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:36:23 UTC No. 16273013

>>16272762
i wonder how long it will be until stuff like this is recognized as a mental disability

my imagination would feel so stifled if i couldn't essentially "render" it internally in 3D

my condolences anon - hopefully this is something you can actually practice and improve and not a fundamental deficiency in your brain

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:13:07 UTC No. 16273236

>>16272431
I think I've done this one.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:15:11 UTC No. 16273237

>>16272455
>>16272489
The fuck? Rotate one and they look the same to me (assuming there's nothing hiding in the back).

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:16:11 UTC No. 16273238

>>16272762
No shit?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:19:12 UTC No. 16273241

>>16272431
Yes, they're obviously different shapes due to the hidden cube on the right one.
This thread is probably the best midwit filter on /sci/ right now. Anons are smart enough to rotate a simple shape but too retarded to consider other possibilities, the definition of midwit

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:26:27 UTC No. 16273248

>>16272431
You are an NPc your can't rotate that in the 4th spatial dimension with your mind

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:32:41 UTC No. 16273262

>>16273241
Very cartesian of you

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:34:23 UTC No. 16273268

>>16272431
>instantly
neither can we, but we can do it faster by just rotating it in our minds

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:39:34 UTC No. 16273277

>>16273237
>Rotate one and they look the same to me (assuming there's nothing hiding in the back).
That's all there is to say. But "assuming there's nothing hiding in the back" really bothers me because you do technically need another view of the object on the right for full information.
You'd fail freshman 1 engineering drawing / CAD if you presented only the view on the right as a full explanation of an object.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:41:26 UTC No. 16273280

>>16273277
But you have the view on the left.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:49:43 UTC No. 16273291

>>16273280
The question was whether the shape on the left is the same as the one on the right or not.
If we don't know whether they're the same (and we don't) then we can't assume things we can't see. There may be another block obscured from view in the right one (and there's no other view presented), so there's no way to actually know what the shape on the right even looks like based solely on OP's pic.
It's extremely obvious that a Y-axis 180-deg rotation of the left image would look like the right image, but that wasn't the question.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:14:19 UTC No. 16273320

>>16273291
Right, but your engineering class draws the same object from different views, particularly to uncover hidden features. This drawing fits the criteria. You can get back to eating crayons or dicks or whatever it is engineers satisfy themselves with these days.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:49:49 UTC No. 16273349

>>16273277
>>16273291
you've trapped yourself in some kind of midwit paradox here. consider the following 2 tasks:
1. determine if these 2D perspective projections are of the same opaque 3D shape
2. demonstrate the 3D structure of this opaque 3D shape via a set of multiple 2D perspective projections

you have to assume that the presented information in task 1 is sufficient for an answer if the given projections COULD or COULDN'T be a result of completing task 2, because otherwise you're just refusing to engage with the task itself on the basis of "lack of perfect knowledge," which is missing the fucking point so severely it's akin to responding to "1=?" with "no answer, because i don't know for certain what the question means by '1'."

similarly, you have to assume that correct output of task 2 is something for which task 1 responds with "true," because otherwise the person performing task 1 using your output from task 2 is just being a pedantic asshole who is literally impossible to satisfy (more than one perspective projection is part of the task, all of which your audience must assume belong to the same 3D shape if their projections are visibly compatible, because that is the extent of the information you are able to present). outside bizarre geometries not relevant to the simplicity of the two tasks presented, somebody responding to the output of task 2 with "they could be the same shape but what if they aren't?" is just inventing a literally impossible requirement outside both of the presented tasks in order to avoid having to complete the two tasks.

just admit you can't do it and move on at that point.

as an aside, anon, do you struggle with basic theory of mind? i've laid out exactly why people are making (and indeed, must make) these assumptions logically, but most people don't need it spelled out for them.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:54:45 UTC No. 16273353

>>16272449
>>16272457
cope

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:58:21 UTC No. 16273360

>>16273349
You've trapped yourself into thinking things are complicated for "mummy look how smrt I am points."
Keep it simple, all you can say for sure (assuming that there are only blocks and that blocks must be adjacent to another block) is that the one on the right *could* represent a rotated version of the one on the left but there's no way given OP's pic to know for sure. It really is that simple.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:00:21 UTC No. 16273366

>>16273360
wordcel gets a shape rotator question wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:04:37 UTC No. 16273369

>>16273366
You can't prove that there isn't a square in green in picrel on the right one
Therefore you can't prove that the shape on the right is the same as the one on the left.
Shrimple as that.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:10:39 UTC No. 16273380

>>16272461
You can with this added info:
>both contain exactly 7 blocks
Low IQ wordthinkers (like women or woke, weak men) cannot operate on this information and tell you whether these are the same shape instantly, like just by looking at it. It’s like that water bottle "puzzle“.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:17:15 UTC No. 16273387

>>16272431
>>cannot form images in mind
>>can easily tell whether these shapes are the same or not.
anon are you a fucking moron.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:23:05 UTC No. 16273398

>>16273277
You're such a retard, as long as an axis is defined and a single proportionality measurement is in the model for each axis, any CAD drawing can be fully geometrically complete just through relations

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:26:46 UTC No. 16273474

>>16273360
oh, it's plenty simple.
see >>16273349:
>just admit you can't do it and move on

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:28:30 UTC No. 16273477

>>16272489
No they aren't. They'd be enantiomers if the right was a mirror image of the left, but it isn't. It's just rotated.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:33:45 UTC No. 16273493

>>16273349
>is just inventing a literally impossible requirement outside both of the presented tasks in order to
Wtf? Just specify there are exactly 7 blocks in both figures and then it's doable. Alternatively just tilt the right shape slightly so we know there isn't a hidden cube

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:03:40 UTC No. 16273987

>>16273493
>just specify that they're the same shape and it's doable
anon, i...

>just admit you can't do it and move on

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:11:17 UTC No. 16273995

>>16273369
there can't be a green shape there cause there isn't a green shape there in the right hand part and the left hand part shows the other side, so I don't see how you would be right

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:20:31 UTC No. 16275406

>>16273237
>rotate
that makes it a different shape dumbass

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:24:22 UTC No. 16275410

>>16275406
I can't tell if you have afantasia or you're trolling.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:30:18 UTC No. 16275417

>>16272431
Wrong I have aphasia and I can easily rotate objects in my head (144 spatial IQ). I don’t imagine the objects as 3D rigid colorful forms, but instead my mind maps a shit ton of “points” into a subconscious ghost model that I can’t see but know they’re there and I can rotate them together easily

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:54:11 UTC No. 16275557

>>16272431
This is a trivial problem to solve without visualization. Simply assign coordinates to the blocks based on their positions relative to some fixed point in the shape and verify that each block's coordinate is the same between the two images.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:21:26 UTC No. 16275574

>>16272431
You completely misunderstood the study, congrats on being retarded. Both those who can and cannot form images solve the image by rotating it in steps, which takes a measurable amount of time. The study just shows that people with aphantasia take longer.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:54:05 UTC No. 16275673

>>16273477
They are mirror images, dumbass

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:59:26 UTC No. 16275793

>>16272431
I can't form images in my head and I can do that, my imagination is just more spatial than visual, I "feel" the shape and orientation of each object.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:57:38 UTC No. 16275891

>>16272457
>>16272455
>>16272461
Pedantry in an attempt to steer the discussion off course to disguise their personal failings

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:17:50 UTC No. 16275906

>>16275891
He's obviously correct, though. Literally everyone can instantly see that the shapes are the same, assuming they both consist of 7 blocks. Clearly some are unable to comprehend that they do not necessarily have 7 blocks, though.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:50:11 UTC No. 16275935

>>16273995
>suppose they are the same
>in conclusion, they are the same
genius

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:02:40 UTC No. 16275956

>>16272431
they are literally the same
just rotate the first one and obtain the second image retard.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:07:29 UTC No. 16275963

>>16272457
Nigga, a cube could be hidden behind both of them. They would yet be the same shape. If correct assumptions added.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:08:30 UTC No. 16275965

>>16275963
yet I'm too lazy to introduce assumptions.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:16:02 UTC No. 16275976

>>16275965
Nah just assume there are no hidden cubes lmao. Only the cubes in your field of vision can exist. Also you can't rotate yourself and change vision. But can only change the rotation of cubes.