The Virtual, the Human Senses and One “Imperfect Concurrency”

The digital technology and the world of a virtual space by projecting them cardinal changed the face of the world. This wide-spread in varying degrees digital-virtual technology in modern society for nearly thirty years now, radically changed the society on a planetary scale, in various economic, political, social, legal, ethical, cultural, etc. perspectives. Indeed, to this day the world turns into a possible “togetherness” (with all possible “for” and “against” globalization) – the catalyst for this is digital, technical and technological boom. The whole boom in turn raises many questions mostly related to the source, which builds digital-technology “body” and its “life” – the human. What happened to his purely human body senses and what possible virtual or imaginary worlds hovers it? Here are a few thoughts as sketched lines in the first person singular, an essayistic-philosophical perspective on human senses and virtual. The “imperfect concurrency” ... for which we do not speak or do not think, but actually it is constituted direct and intentional phenomena of “stuff” into, within and out of the world. Moreover, we, humans, experience the world in narrow barriers of time in which there remains no reflects not seen, or rather not take very much of what happens in it. For virtual, fantasy and sensuality in touch for life. Unfortunately the humans in their existence increasingly trying to “numb themselves” rely on their eyes and ears, and to distance itself from their non-visual senses. For the loss of this ability or the need for feeling, for example, a touch of liveliness helps – contributes comparison of human, with residence and his communication in virtual space. The virtual creates the false illusion of a public (free-for-all) world, that is “with” and “together” us.


Introduction
Experiences for very different phenomenology, which recommends these to Edmund Huserl -always I have wanted to able to describe this moment -the moment of experience, feeling and grasping the time of becoming and experiencing the thing. I have the chance to be one of those people who have ever had to travel somewhere, I would say I am grateful for this opportunity, because it is an extraordinary chance of reflection. Maurice Merleau-Ponty expressed this reflection with the words: "As an effort to found the existing world upon a thought of the world, the reflection at each instant draws its inspiration from the prior presence of the world, of which it is tributary, from which it derives all its energy" (Merleau-Ponty, 1968: 34). I love to travel at night or when it's dark. Perhaps the fact that I am almost blind, at such times makes it easier for me to turn my handicap into a quality, or even an advantage. There is no light that annoys me, as Michel Serres writes in his essay: "Often light appears harsh, aggressive and at times cruel" (Serres, 2009: 67). On the other hand, I feel natural and free -the images witch I perceive is not necessary to be completely processed by my consciousness. I do not have to look at them in order to detail them, unfortunately the "things" or "the thing" whether it is a tree or piece of asphalt, this so superficial real-socially visible objectivity is deinformationally non-reflexive. Thus the darkness allows me not to see visual and not visualize to appreciate the "thing" past which I pass, but accepting it in its silhouette, to feel and to reflex over it, until I contemplate it in myself and until I fill it with content to turn it from the shadow-silhouette of the tree or piece of asphalt in their real images, as they are perceived in the visible world, or at least the content that is embedded in them. Is not this an empirical experience described here as a very modest confirmation of Husserl's theory of constitution of the higher degrees of the intersubjectivity, as well as the confirmation of Serres' reflection: "My shadow body can evaluate shadows, it glides amongst them, between their silences, as though it knows them. Shadows excite the closest possible attention and are even subtly revealing; our whole skin comes alive" (Serres, 2009: 68).
As I perceive the "things" around me (thereby), I cannot ask myself "Where am I?". Without intermingling in paradoxical questions such as "What and who is this Ego?", because the Ego know very well at such times "who and what is" ... The Ego at this moment is not topped up, he does not have specific place and time, but is nevertheless in the categories of one a real present and one coming future, or in one a compromised position called of us "imperfect simultaneity". Through and by means of this "imperfect simultaneity" which it is charged with the task of constituting the world around and within itself. The Ego have the task to harness the phenomena and the intentions of the "things" "of" and "for" world in world.
In this "imperfect simultaneity", in this kind of "transition" or "passage", the problem of the spatial and the sensory reflexivity is born. The moment in which the Ego has the ability to form himself within (inside) himself in time, and at the same time monitors the emergence of constitution himself -seeing how the prospect of his constitution "on" and "for" himself, and the picture "of" and "for" the world, is filled with "things". At the same time, the Ego realizes that these "things" are constitutional in themselves constitutions of others Ego -descriptions of "things" themselves. Thus, the constitution of what is happening at the moment of the movement is the reflexive intuitive-shared description between "all" -to be a possible as the personal (reflection of the Ego), as well the "cooperative" social reality... Or this is: 2. The uncontinued continuity ... for which WE do not talk, do not mark, do not think, but in fact in it is constituting and mentally directing the phenomena of things "of" and "for" the world. It is worthwhile to note that we people perceive and experience a world in very limited barriers of time, in which does not remain, does not reflect and does not perceived or more precisely, it does not involve much of what is happening in it.
If we people were not so "limited" in our perceptions, we would have to react to 100 stimuli per second, which would not be in our power, we actually save no more than 30. Thus the objective world fits into our heads only under certain conditions -for example, if less than three milliseconds have passed between two acoustic stimuli, the sounds remain in a "window of simultaneity", or that information is irretrievably lost to us. And this "window" is not equally open to all the senses -between two skin irritations or feelings of touch, we have to spend 10 milliseconds to distinguish them as separate ones. The optical stimuli require even more, the visible world to perceive it as it is we have assumed that it is visual, it must be thirty milliseconds so that our human brain can make one of all the events that happen around it in at least two images, but the human can never say which of the two was the first and which the second.
The imperfect simultaneity is called this brief phase of brain disorientation -we need a new 30/40 milliseconds before identifying the first image as the first and the second as the next. Another difficulty in identifying the accepted image of something in us comes from the fact that in our consciousness we cannot have more than one figurative content, and no longer than approximately 3 seconds -it is actually our "window in the present" in which we are thinking, it is the basis of a human relationships ..., relationships in a three-second tact. The poets apparently always knew it -studies of several hundred poems on the length of the verse show that poetry is created on average in 3.1 second tact.
What happens to this "imperfect simultaneity" when something about the "proper" functioning of our senses is violated, and how large will this "window in the present" be through and through which we will perceive the world? Then the world is not so accepted by us to be closer to the fantasy world, or this different image of the world, will be closer to a kind of "perfect simultaneity", a more real world than more the real invading through the "window of the present" within us?
The fact is that through our vision, we humans get 80% of the information about the world around us and that human can only use 10% of his brain -different studies show that even for the execution of a simple task, practically all sectors of our main brain. It is a fact, however, that when the function of one of our senses is disturbed, the others to the possible extent take on the functions of contributing information and data about the empirical world to our brain. But to what extent human has thought in his being (daily routine) that if he tries to work on his senses, his perceptions of the visible-empirical world, as well as his soul-inner world, perceptions and images of things will become fuller, dense and nuanced. This will also be the way the human starts to use most part of his brain. We say that we do not seem to have enough senses, but in fact we human do not use the ones we have of full value and adequate. The center that will process our senses is our brain and it will do what we give it as information. The periphery "by" and "through" which the entire full imagery will be invaded "of" and "for" the world will be accomplished through our senses, their sensitivity and delicacy. Our senses are our periphery. Serres asks: "Have we five senses, or six? Scholastic thought in the Middle Ages divided our sensorium into external and internal. Hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste were reputed to be external. (…) Indeed a sixth sense is necessary, in which the subject turns in on itself and the body on the body: a common or internal sense, indeed a sixth island was necessary, a doubly enclosed island for the body itself". (Serres, 2009: 53-54). This thing within us maybe is our soul. Our ephemeral, superstitious and sensual body of our Ego.
When we hear the following description: It is yellow, oval, lightly rough, with an acidic flavor and we see the object, it is very easy, given the elementary empirical attempt to answer that it is lemon. And if we have an attempt to know this information, we have it thanks to our perceptions that synthesize and organize the data coming from all our senses. All the information is stored in our brain and we only know what it is about with the sight and hearing of the description and the object we see. The answer to this question is very easy when we have vision and we see the subject, but if we do not have one, or the subject that we are talking about is not in front of us and we have to guess it, the situation is complicated. If we only hear the above description, we are focusing on the information that comes from the other senses that are stored in us and which we are beginning to look for in order to synthesize it ... Or if the subject is said to be: in yellow color, oval shape, slightly rough surface, with sour taste ... our consciousness will automatically focus on the information that could come into us through the other senses: oval shape -by touch, a slightly rough surface -touch, with a sour taste -with our taste, and finally we will think about the characteristic "yellow", and we will try to guess which objects is characteristic the yellow color.
In fact, in the moment when human begins to lose his vision, he begins to realize how important it is to work and enrich his senses ... how important is the sense and ability of our sense of touch and our awareness. Our sensitivity in all its varied and multidimensional information that it can admit within us directly touches our soul -adjusts it positively or negatively, caresses or hurts us soul. Thus our soul have possibility and opportunity to judge before our reason has told "for" and/or "against"... Here is how easy it is to answer the question: "Why do we like something and why not?"... without we have a reasonable explanation. This is a thing, which our Ego is perceiving of "Imperfect simultaneity" -it is a priori combination which our reason most likely will not understand, confuse or process and realize after time.
Yes, after the vision that leads us around the world with astonishing precision, the touch is the other most developed human senses. By the way, if human relies only on his vision and on the other senses like taste, hearing, but without touch, the world around him will look like a very beautiful perspective picture, but it will not feel the multidimensionality and density of its being -our world would be like an artificial panorama -"Touch has the upper hand (...) an internal sense or the body itself, closes its veils as the body does its skin. The organs of the external senses are open veils or envelopes. Through these doors we see, hear and experience tastes and fragrances; through these walls, even when they are shut, we touch" (Serres, 2009: 65).

For virtual, the fantasy and the seniority in adding for life of blind human
Unfortunately, the human in his daily being (routine) to trying to "stiffen himself", to ride on his eyes and ears, and to distance himself from his non-visual sensibility. For the loss of this ability or necessity for feeling, for example, a touch of vitality helps the human adhesion "with" him predominantly living and communicating in the virtual space. The virtual creates the false illusion of a world accessible to us, which is in front of us and with us. This virtual artificial world is without any limits and time constraints, with accessible and up-to-date information, with the ability to communicate at any level without the need for much extra movement in real space. The virtual reality today is transferred to all the means of digital and visual information we use -from our phones, through our TVs to the dpi-press devices which navigate the cars we drive ... Thus the virtual create the false illusion that we are not alone -there is always some presence around us in the form of a sound or voice signal that tells us something, informs us. But the virtual creates and strengthens the sense of loneliness, alienation and lust for a lack of living presence, a lack of freshness with a breath of reality.
The human will increasingly live through and in the virtual. Increasingly, his mobility in space will be mediated. We will deform our bodies without our desire for active movement, or if we do it, most of the fitness equipment will help us in this activity by informing us how many kilometers we have escaped and how many calories we have burned for that time -another is the question that no gym, even with the best visual effects and multimedia environment that attempts to simulate natural scenery, cannot replace workout in and around the living environment. That is no matter how much we try to deceive our body's sensibility, that for it the digital-virtual reality is normal and that it is more useful, it is our living body lives mostly through its sensuality. And what the virtual can provide is just an imitation, a holographic image that does not animate our essence. This digital adhesion at the end will lead the human to the state of not seeing (blindness) or hearing (deafness). It is a fact that our useful technologies harm our vision and our hearing. On the other hand, this so fake touch to life virtual world is further enhancing the inner need for physical closeness between people. Yes, we are able to talk to and see our loved ones from anywhere in the world, but we are unable to touch or embrace them. The contact in the virtual is short, cool, and incomplete. The contact in the virtual deprives the Ego of experiencing to his being. The being of something or someone through and in the virtual is a being without identitythis "thing" "there" is simply a bunch of digital licences. This makes the necessity and the absence for the other even greater, because in its essence a person is sensuous -he first senses the world through the touch of his body with the environment, then he hears with his own and sees it through his eyes. Therefore is so hard a human to break up with someone -whether because of death, departure, separation, because the other is missing as a presence for a living touch, because it is no longer in your "space", there is no being created and in living contact with the other. This being with the other begins to translate himself living space, which its has when and one and the others Ego communicate in themselves living. This being creates itself story and when it is necessary to end, because of the impossibility of life, such as death -a meta-reaction to the extreme of something, but still to death. Then everything that the other has touched becomes important and vice versa, it is unimportant, because there where was the other, it is no longer because it is no longer there -there is no touch of living life with which and the other leaves. The human can deceive his mind, force his heart, but cannot change his sensibility of his senses or his sensations of touching something or someone. The touch to human is touching to his living life, to his unique, mechanically irreproducible, because when we touch the other by means of our body -our skintouch soul of other. In one of his essays, the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega-y-Gasset describes how city topography is being restructured if viewed through the optics of changing human relationships: "While Madrid's space remains the same, it is already sharply altered if the beloved human with which is the city was lived -has already left him there: Now I perceive to what extent my love for Soledad was irradiated all the city and my life in it ... Now I paid attention to the fact that even the farthest things I did not think they might have something in common with Soledad, to have gained an additional connection with her, and that is precisely what they are doing for me their determining quality. Although ones and the same the geometric, topographic attributes of Madrid have lost their validity. Before this city had for me a center and a periphery. The center was Soledad's house, a periphery -all those places where Soledad never appeared ... Some things were close, others far, depending on their distance to where I expected to see my beloved" (Копринаров, 2010: 43).
The virtual itself is a kind of fantastic, one imaginary world. These two so temporary features are its most distinctive traits, so the feelings, sensations or knowledge that could be brought about through it are characterized by perishability. From the real space, whatever it is, man cannot escape, disappear because he is in it through his body. From the real space, the real world human can to leave only by his death. In the virtual, he can enter only if he wants to communicate with others on virtual social networks. Now often we are witnessing the death of the person in the real life, and actuality of him account in the virtual space. Here the life to being of the person continues -physical death not means virtual. Our virtual identity is updated every time when others seek our virtual Ego in a virtual space -in other words, the human create and himself virtual birth, virtual life and virtual death by himself identity.
When you communicate with someone in the virtual, he is per se is virtual alive and dead at the same time: because he does not have his physical living being -"being to you"; because he does not have that feeling of "imperfect simultaneity", which we are reconverted to realize that experience, which publishes an enormous existence of the other -inaccessible of our senses when the other is gone.
After the world is so richer in experiences that are left unacceptable by our senses, is not our human perceptible image of the world, too fancy, even virtually cold and visually constrained?
The road to a richer of sensible sensations and images world passes through to awareness of the perception of our senses and into in ourselves. As biological-physical beings, we humans in the world always and foremost manifest through our bodies. This the rich anthropocentric existence that we may have in our present is somehow forgotten, broken and discarded.
Yes, the world of the blind human is not so precise from the "visibility" of "things", but it is more multidimensional and dense from the feelings and images, which remain in himself. The real space of the blind person is much more fulfilled with information about "things" than could be perceived only by means of vision as a sensing, suppressing the other senses. When the blind people get acquainted they feel their bodies far more meaningful than the glimpse that we could throw on the other. The touch forever leaves into you the sense of vitality and presence of the human being of other -a sense of ontological presence of the body as a vital essence and emanation of the impenetrable despite its morbidity, transience, variability and death. The touch is also contact to the possibility of "grasping" this proximity and marking it as unique. When we are greeting, we appreciate the handing and taking of the foreign hand, which says much more about its owner. By touching the hand of the other, the energy coming from the hand tells us that he is warm or cold, worried or happy, ill or quiet, etc. We know how is other only by his handshake. What we lose and what remains in the space of "imperfect simultaneity" by not using our sense of touch in the world, from which the blind human enjoys, and to whom he relies heavily?
A little known fact is that when a human touches another human, his body releases endorphin, which calms us, so for living people is so important. When we talk to someone we cannot touch the body is under of stress and is not sure of the follow-up action -when the human is ahead of us and we exchange handshake, we are consciously rest assured of his biological being at the next moment. That is why we love touching, hugs or embracing our dear people, because we get a confirmation sign for their "here" and "now" for their future.
There are millions of touch receptors on the surface of our skin. They transmit the sensation directly to our brains. We have specialized feelings for dry and wet, smooth or rough. It is not hard to figure out what we are touching. The receptors for touch capture things like pressure, temperature or vibration. They send this information to our brains in the form of signals, and the combination of signals allows us to know what we are touching. One of the main tasks of our receptors is to protect us from injury. When it is possible to cause pain from pricking, the pain receptors alert and we withdraw. The receptors for touch are the most in places that most actively interact with the surrounding world. When we cut our finger with grass, the pain is very unpleasant, but if we cut our feet, we may not even feel it. The different parts of the body feel different. This, however, is not due to the number of receptors. Each section of the body sends information to a particular brain partition. For example, as we go in a certain direction, the receptors of the foot transmit to our brains, the information from where we pass, what is the surface under our feet, so also the blind people are very fast in their familiar spaces without respecting the environment. "The soles of your feet begin to be more aware, your shoulders brush against the branches, the stone in the ditch gives off a peaceful light. One can do almost anything without light, except write. Writing requires a glimmer. Life is satisfied with shadows, reading requires clarity" (Serres, 2009: 68) Or…, bathing -when we stand in the shower, we are quite aware that our vision is not necessary. We know very well what is on our body and when a part of it is already clean and when it is not. The skin tells us where the water that touches us has passed, and which section of it is already thoroughly cleansed, and consciousness takes this information with complete confidence, that is, if we look at every detail around that we pass, we will lose a lot of time, and we look every inch from our body while bathing. Serres described and expressed our skin sensation with the words: "Our skin resembles that of jaguars, panthers and zebras, even though we do not have fur. The pattern of the senses is displayed there, studded with subdued centres and spotted with marks; the skin is a variety of our mingled senses. The skin, a single tissue with localized concentrations, displays sensitivity. It shivers, expresses, breathes, listens, loves and lets itself be loved, receives, refuses, retreats, its hair stands on end with horror, it is covered with fissures, rashes, and the wounds of the soul. The most instructive diseases, the sicknesses of identity, affect the skin and form tattoos that tragically hide the bright colors of birth and experience" (Serres, 2009: 52) If we use our eyes in such moments, they supply our brain with a vast amount of information that it will already have received from our other sensesunfortunately, we are set up that almost 1/3 of our brain is committed to processing the information coming -in fact, the slowest through our vision. The blind people have the incredible ability to compress time by relying on the information they receive to the outside world through its senses, which information they transmit it to the brain faster than the visual organ, as they can use the rest of the time for other activities necessary to the body.
It turns out that for the blind human is not a big difficulty to sew or to paint -activities, which need ostensibly to visual precision. The blind people also make to build and construct buildings. They make sport scores, to climb mountains, to write poetry, or compose music. Obviously, everything is a matter of mindset -how far you are able to turn inward to what is a priori set in reason as knowledge and pre-experience, and based on the breadth of the spiritual horizon to realized, not just relying on visual perception. Immanuel Kant in his Prolegomena to any future metaphysics is thinking about this how knowledge for the "thing" in world, and to our experienced concepts which we construct before consciously to understand over one a priori base of knowledge which we carry in our minds and to them to put, to construct and project in world. After that, though our senses to consciously perceive them in us. For this possibility of our mind Immanuel Kant writes: "Pure mathematics, and especially pure geometry, can have objective reality only under the single condition that it refers merely to objects of the senses, with regard to which objects, however, the principle remains fixed, that our sensory representation is by no means a representation of things in themselves, but only of the way in which they appear to us" (Kant, 2004: 38). Merleau-Ponty gives another example for Immanuel Kant: "When Kant justifies each step of his Analytic with the famous refrain 'If a World to be possible', he emphasizes the fact that his guideline is furnished him by the unreflected image of the world, that the necessity of the steps taken by the reflection is suspended upon the hypothesis 'world', and that the thought of the world with the Analytic is charged with disclosing is not so much the foundation as the second expression of the fact that for me there was been an experience of a world -in other words, that the intrinsic possibility of the world as a thought rests upon the fact that I can see the world, that is, upon a possibility of a wholly different type, which we have seen borders on the impossible. It is by a secret and constant appeal to this impossible-possible that reflection can maintain the illusion of being a return to oneself and of establishing itself" (Merleau-Ponty, 1968: 34). 4. Why sometimes our brain refuses to register the obvious?
The answer to this question is quite easy.
First, as it has already become clear the human has his "window in the present" or horizon of perception in which he can assume the various facts that happen around him, but in a certain range.
Second, because the human who very rely on his vision, is accustomed only to perceiving things, which are somehow known to him, or are a collection of images (agglutinations).
And third, because our visual system is so structured to perceive and keep our look over something, which will be useful to us in our being, or our survival, and the other to it we ignore. Our eyes can to perceive many things and to miss just as much as happen in front of them. For example, the sky over Los Angeles is one of the places where we can play of chasing with real planes. When we observe such a play of chasing, we can understand how our eyes work at a very high speed. The pilot should notice an airplane moving at speeds over 400 km, then he must not to letting it out of his look as it runs through the air. This requires a huge concentration. The subject moves and that is what attracts the human look. Now the other plane now knows it's been spotted and trying to get away. While the pursued plane moves by making holes, the pilot cannot trace it. This high-speed study is conducted at the limits of our vision for perceiving a moving object in front of us. Imagine if in front of us objects move, which a much higher speed than our eye is set to perceive -they would never be recorded by our senses. The human as a part of the animal world is armed with medium-sized eyes, but hence the road is gifted with very sensitive sensations of touch and a very well developed intuition that should not be ignored and underestimated.
If an elephant can fix him prey to more than a kilometer or a cheetah can run at a speed of 100 km per minute, or the chameleon's eyes move in different directions, so that he can control the space around him. Then for life in the present of human will him begin to learn to rely on his other senses of his vision. It turns out that the human eye has not been ready to be so high irradiation by digital technologies. The virtual facilitates the everyday life of a globalized, mobile human, but blinds and immobilizes him -damaging the eyes, hands and spine. Already every 20 th person on the ground with a computer faces a syndrome called "dry eye", glaucoma, progressive myopia, and "tunnel syndrome" -characterized by numbness, pricking and shaking of the fingers, and wrist pain. As Jacques Attali writes "Our industry will produce "artificial joints, fingers, lenses, bones, heart valves, speech and motor apparatuses" (Attali, 1992: 124).
In fact, how does the image of the world of the blind human is a real image of the world, after in it may be allowed to perceive sensations, sensibilities and feelings unknown to people with normal vision? Is this world imagined in which the hearing of the word "yellow" is associated with the heat of the sun, the light (for those blind people catching the light), or the taste of mature pear and sour lemon? How could this knowledge of the blind human for the things in the world to surrender to the people with normal vision, so that they may somehow more often turn to "imperfect simultaneity" -to be able to contemplate there the world's phenomena? How could this knowledge of the blind human for "things" in world to teach people with normal vision that they could to shorten the time around them for various activities as they used more complete their sensibility? With the rest of time, for example, they would be to re-define the world. The blind human compresses time with the ability to use his senses more complete. So the rest of the time seems somewhat material, necessary or unnecessary as something to be used or discarded. More compete use of our senses compresses the time and changes its parameters. The time is relative, sleek, flexible in its nature, function and structure, but it canes be rather dense and cumbersome when lives through incomplete. Very difficult must be to apply about it the parameters like "cut", "deleted" or "eaten", because it is already lost, missed unnecessary. It is clear that the way we experience the time is specific, but and it becomes clear that when our senses their capacities, try to draw and reflex on the "impossible simultaneity", the time as a factor loses its essence and dies.

Conclusions -We need more looking at ourselves
How the blind human canes to convince the human with normal vision that the world of the blind human is much richer in terms of feeling: soul, voluminous imagery and humanity?
How the blind human canes to convince the human with normal vision, who is obsessive in the virtual, that the feeling of touch with the other person's life is irreplaceable and unfortunately -sometimes unique in time...?
If we look at the analysts of the gestalt psychologists on the human perceptions, we will come to the following. Unfortunately, as every touch to something sacral and mysterious is punishable, so also the blind human who has returned to the vision world, he must difficult to find, to understand himself, to become accustomed to the visibility of the world. The spectacular world overturns the entire tuning of reason for the essence of the reality of the blind human. This return or re-entry into a world alien to the blind human in most cases perceived by consciousness as an existential murder. Must to be deleted one world at the expense of another -one of the twoforever remains alien. With other words -opportunity already of vision translates the personality from one reality into another, from one dimension to another -which makes it difficult to get used, because for the blind human, the real world one he is experiences through sensuous his senses, and the fantastic one of the human with normal vision, who use his eyes to watch the world.
The British philosopher John Locke, in his memoirs, notes a letter received from colleague William Molino. In his letter, William Molino puts the following question to John Locke, finally giving himself an answer: "Suppose a human was born blind. He is now an adult, and by his senses, he has learned to distinguish a cube of a sphere made of the same metal and approximately the same size so that when he touches one and then the other he can say what it is. To suppose them, that the cube and the sphere are placed on a table, and the blind human has seen. Can he before touching them through vision, distinguish them and say what is the globe, what -the cube?" Molino answers alone and says "no". The good empiricist Lock agrees and without the knowledge gained through the visual experience, the hypothetical Molino would be impeded.
The experiment which Molino and Locke imagine themselves has in fact been repeatedly held. People who were born blind, but have regained vision themselves on a surgical path have been examined by psychologists. Many of them initially see very little and fail to distinguish even simple forms. They are able to distinguish objects, fix their eyes on them, and follow them if they move, so these abilities are probably inherent. Usually they cannot visually recognize even those objects that are capable of identifying sensibly, such as keys, fruits and faces of their loved ones. They can identify triangles, but only the number of angles. Sometimes -after long learning -they develop vision that works and they are able to visually recognize the objects. The sad thing is that some of them are emotionally upset, refused, and actually return to their earlier, blind ways of life (Rödiger, 1999: 58)

General conclusions
The text started with the following keywords: digital technology, virtual space, imperfect concurrency. The last two words were the main subject of this essay. We often wonder "what the human soul is", "how a psyche is possible", "how other people perceive world" or "how other people filling world", etc.
This essay we introduced into a little explored problem like the imperfect concurrency. Into it are hidden the answers to the questions we mentioned in the previous sentence. Knowing our senses is the way to our soul. The virtual space even more requires the need to turn to our purely human sensibility, because we are human, not robots.
Well, my travel is over. I arrived. On the road stayed many "things" with which I was only touching on the level of their constitutive existence, they only stayed as appeared before me phenomena, but in an inexpressible, even bordering on the fantastic "imperfect simultaneity", which actually leads us around the world -"essential is invisible to the eye" ...