What do you think of anecdotal evidence? [Archive]

Dr Adequate

10th March 2005, 06:13 PM

I was going to post a thread about what we mean by "anecdotal". But we can probably talk about it on this thread.Originally posted by Interesting Ian
1) Even in the absence of any scientific evidence, personal experiences, and/or experiences of others of some specific particular alleged phenomenon or ability, might occasionally warrant a rational person to claim that we have actual knowledge of said phenomenon or ability.

2) In the absence of any scientific evidence, personal experiences and/or experiences of others of some phenomenon or ability, might on occasions (e.g some commonly experienced alleged phenomenon or ability) be said to be fairly strongly suggestive or indicative of the reality of the phenomenon or ability in question, although we could never claim we have actual knowledge of it.

3) In the absence of any scientific evidence, personal experiences and/or experiences of others of some phenomenon or ability, no matter how common or universal such experiences are, can only ever be said to be weakly suggestive or indicative of the reality of the phenomenon or ability in question.

4) Personal experiences and other peoples' experiences of some alleged phenomenon or ability do not give any evidence whatsoever of the reality of the phenomenon or ability in question, nor do they even indicate or suggest the reality of the phenomenon or ability in question. This is so no matter how common or universal such experiences are. I'd reject outright only number 4. For the rest, it depends what the "personal experiences and/or experiences of others" are like. Given specific examples, I might assign them to either 1 or 2.

There are problems with option 3 which are in fact problems with the interpretation of all the options, but which only make me hesitate with regard to option 3. Can you clear these up?

(a) I know my "personal experiences" but not the "experiences of others". These can never be made manifest as evidence until someone invents a mindreading machine. So it should be "the reported experience of others". And in my case, come to think of it, it should be "your memory of your personal experiences".

(b) The other problem is that I don't see how you distinguish between "evidence" and "scientific evidence". I realise that you said "scientific evidence" in order to try to be fair (thank you) but in another sense it's a potential straw man. What do you mean by "scientific evidence" either absolutely, or just in this context (I won't hold you to it in other threads)?

PixyMisa

10th March 2005, 06:17 PM

No. (To all four options and to your current signature.)

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th March 2005, 06:28 PM

The options are not well redacted. For example, the UFO phenomena is real, thats the fact one can draw from anecdotal evidence. But you cant jump from there to state that "the fact" is that UFO's are ships from other planets.

Nex

10th March 2005, 06:34 PM

What Bodhi said. :D

I don't doubt that people have these experiences, what I doubt is the (totally wacked-out) explanations they can give to those experiences.

I also doubt I'm the only skeptic/sceptic/sckeptick that sees it that way. :p

Dr Adequate

10th March 2005, 06:56 PM

Okay, I'll post the thread.

In What Sense Do We Object To "Anecdotal Evidence"? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53793)

Open Mind

10th March 2005, 09:20 PM

I'm hesitating over whether to vote 1 or 2

1 says 'we have actual knowledge of said phenomenon or ability.'

2 says ' we could never claim we have actual knowledge of it'

Iâ€™m somewhere between these two/

To me there are 3 types of evidence (a) Directly experienced paranormal occurrence (i.e. anecdotal to others) (b) Not directly experienced but receiving evidential information through a psychic or another person having the direct paranormal experience (.i.e. also anecdotal to others) (c) Scientific evidence, under agreed controls so it is not judged â€˜anecdotalâ€™ by others.

If I had more (a) type evidence then I would definitely vote 1

I have good (b) type evidence, so good cold reading hypothesis would be a totally absurd explanation of it â€¦â€¦ however I cannot trust others 100% although it was through people who seemed amongst the most sincere and trustworthy of people I have met in my life.

I think I have knowledge of itâ€™s existence but since I have no knowledge of how it works or how to make it work â€¦â€¦.Iâ€™ll vote 2

Ersby

10th March 2005, 11:46 PM

Between two and three. Voted two.

SezMe

11th March 2005, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
No. (To all four options and to your current signature.)
Pixy, to preserve your intellectual property rights, you need to TM "No" After all, nobody else (here, at least) uses it as effectively as you do. :)

Gaga

11th March 2005, 01:12 AM

voted 4
one thing is to say that personal experiences might ask for further investigation, another is to say that they hint at the actual existence of something.
Ufo phenomenon is an almost universal experience, from there to the reality of green bug-eyed men there's a long road to walk

just my opinion of course...

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I was going to post a thread about what we mean by "anecdotal". But we can probably talk about it on this thread. I'd reject outright only number 4. For the rest, it depends what the "personal experiences and/or experiences of others" are like. Given specific examples, I might assign them to either 1 or 2.

I wanted to avoid giving specific examples at this juncture. I'm asking about anything which people allegedly experience, but where we do not have scientific evidence. So feel free to pick your own examples.

There are problems with option 3 which are in fact problems with the interpretation of all the options, but which only make me hesitate with regard to option 3. Can you clear these up?

In option 2 I'm basically echoing the sentiment that science can only truly give us knowledge, but that if many people allegedly experience some phenomenon, and these experiences are universal (i.e not tied down to a specific time or place), then that is strongly suggestive of the reality of the phenomenon in question.

Option 4 is what most people on this board have said they hold. However past experience has taught me that when I express my opponents position in such stark terms, they tend to claim I'm attacking a strawman. In other words I suspect that some of you will feel that 4 might overstate their position. Hence option 3. If voting for option 3 it would then be up to the individual to clarify what they mean here.

(a) I know my "personal experiences" but not the "experiences of others". These can never be made manifest as evidence until someone invents a mindreading machine.
So it should be "the reported experience of others". And in my case, come to think of it, it should be "your memory of your personal experiences".

(b) The other problem is that I don't see how you distinguish between "evidence" and "scientific evidence". I realise that you said "scientific evidence" in order to try to be fair (thank you) but in another sense it's a potential straw man. What do you mean by "scientific evidence" either absolutely, or just in this context (I won't hold you to it in other threads)? [/B]

Scientific evidence means evidence which has been collected scientifically. I suppose repeatable on demand etc, but it's not really important in this context. Some abilities might be repeatable on demand but may nevertheless not have been scientifically verified.

Donks

11th March 2005, 03:58 AM

My view of anecdotal evidence is this: It is valuable as a first step. Anecdotal evidence is used as the first observation of a phenomenon, which then can be researched in a more organized way testing hypotheses. OTOH, anecdotal evidence's value ends there. If appropriate testing reveals no effect, then it does not matter how much anecdotal evidence exists.

rppa

11th March 2005, 04:03 AM

Though I have argued for the reality, in some sense, of subjective experience, and though I think personal stories carry weight in our investigations of the phenomena behind subjective experience... I had to vote #4. The other three required me to conclude something from the anecdotes alone, with no indication of how carefully they were investigated, whether they were first person, or whether a distinction was made between the person's impressions and the paranormal "explanation".

That is, the experience might be "and he called me right when I was thinking of him." The Ian-ized data point might be "and we telepathically communicated."

Anyway, my actual viewpoint, not expressed in the poll (why is it that the woo-woos on this forum never post polls with a full range of options?) is that a widely-reported subjective phenomenon warrants scientific investigation, but that we should reserve judgement until after doing that investigation.

OK, it's been 150 years or so of scientific investigation... we can make a judgement now: There doesn't seem to be any phenomenon here.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
The options are not well redacted. For example, the UFO phenomena is real, thats the fact one can draw from anecdotal evidence. But you cant jump from there to state that "the fact" is that UFO's are ships from other planets.

That's an interesting and good point. Actually everything we ever see is a result of interpretation; even staring at a table in front of you!

Interestingly if there were alien spacecraft patrolling our skies, it is not altogether clear we would be able to see them! Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!

Anyway, the interpretation problem is a colossal problem, but you can take it I mean that people simply have certain basic experiences e.g. near death experiences -- they might be for real,or they might be hallucinations, but nevertheless people do actually have such experiences i.e they were neither lying nor recounting a false memory. Apparitions -- people really do see a visionary appearance of a person who they actually recognize and know to be dead. They could be for "real", or they could be hallucinations (although the supposition that they are illusionary for all cases would be unreasonable e.g. they really only saw a shadow which they misinterpreted). In some instances though I would consider that no other explanations apart from what the experience seems to be, are reasonable e.g. Lucid dreams (having a dream when you are actually aware you are dreaming). Lucid dreams 100 years ago were flat out denied by the scientific establishment. I do not think it reasonable to say people only thought they were dreaming but weren't really.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Interestingly if there were alien spacecraft patrolling our skies, it is not altogether clear we would be able to see them! Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!
Excellent example of anecdotal evidence there.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:14 AM

Having just read Nex and Open Mind, I think I should make it clear I am not talking about any particular group of experiences such as paranormal experiences. This thread is simply about the status of anecdotal evidence (by which I mean personal experiences either of yourself or others).

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Donks
My view of anecdotal evidence is this: It is valuable as a first step. Anecdotal evidence is used as the first observation of a phenomenon, which then can be researched in a more organized way testing hypotheses.

I would suggest that a scientific investigation would be a waste of money in some instances i.e if we are to vote for 1 (like I did), and we know the truth of something prior to any scientific investigation.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Interestingly if there were alien spacecraft patrolling our skies, it is not altogether clear we would be able to see them! Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!

Ashles
Excellent example of anecdotal evidence there.[/B]

Indeed, and this leads to another point. Whether we accept anecdotes or not depends to a very large measure on what we expect. Now from a naive point of view this anecdote sounds wildly implausible. Once you are acquainted though with philosophy and the psychology of perception, then this anecdote is not surprising at all, and there is a very good chance it is true.

Zep

11th March 2005, 04:43 AM

Donks

11th March 2005, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I would suggest that a scientific investigation would be a waste of money in some instances i.e if we are to vote for 1 (like I did), and we know the truth of something prior to any scientific investigation.
Well, I don't think that the truth is that self evident in many cases. Particularly not in complex penomena.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I think you will find, if you care to research a bit more carefully, that they could see them perfectly well (as in make an image on their retinas) at a normal distance, but that they couldn't understand what they were until close up, for the reasons you stated above. The difference is between "observation" and "comprehension". That gap is what "science" seeks to bridge with confidence.

I don't know about images on the retina. But the mind fills in any abnormalities or discrepancies. They wouldn't see the ships (at a distance) in the same way as we do not see our blind spots. Looking out over the ocean their minds are used to just seeing water. One day there is a slight discrepancy in that vision (the ships), but they still see just water because their implicit low level theory of the world literally does not permit them to see the ships.

There's loads of perceptual illusions which rely on this idea.

So I disagree :)

Zep

11th March 2005, 04:52 AM

Zep

11th March 2005, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't know about images on the retina. But the mind fills in any abnormalities or discrepancies. They wouldn't see the ships (at a distance) in the same way as we do not see our blind spots. Looking out over the ocean their minds are used to just seeing water. One day there is a slight discrepancy in that vision (the ships), but they still see just water because their implicit low level theory of the world literally does not permit them to see the ships.

There's loads of perceptual illusions which rely on this idea.

So I disagree :) Projecting, Ian? :)

For a people who lived by the ocean for generations, I imagine watching the skyline for variations was part and parcel of daily life. As was large-scale water-borne travel part of their life (Columbus recorded them doing so).

They knew what a boat was, they just hadn't seen one quite like Columbus' one. I'll bet they wanted to get some just like it!

Ashles

11th March 2005, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, and this leads to another point. Whether we accept anecdotes or not depends to a very large measure on what we expect. Now from a naive point of view this anecdote sounds wildly implausible. Once you are acquainted though with philosophy and the psychology of perception, then this anecdote is not surprising at all, and there is a very good chance it is true.
Absolutely not. Ask any reseacher into perception what they think the likelihood is of this and they will tell you somewhere in the region of zero.
If you are seriously implying that the ships would have been to all intents and purposes invisible then you are compleely wrong and obviously know nothing at all about the psycholgy of perception.

Otherwise how does anyone see anything new and totally unfamiliar?

You have procvided a really good example of anecdotal evidence. You think this story may be true because you heard it somewhere. However there is not a single shred of evidence to bak up this story, and, indeed, anyone familiar with perception would instantly realise how ridiculous the story is.

How did people see the first television images? How did western explorers see giraffes? How do I see a new and impressive special effect in a film?
What is this mechanism that makes new things not register in our visual system? How would that work in evolutionary terms?
Where is the reseacrh to back up this random theory?

And why would floating structures of wood be so incomprehensible to Native Americans? They had buildings, they built boats. They would see people on the boats. Why is it so bizarre?
We see how quickly anecdotal evidence often falls down when it doesn't have evidence (or even internal logic). And that's why we discard it, otherwise lots of people might start believing the 'invisible ships' theory.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Zep
No, accepting anecdotes depends much more on what we will allow ourselves to accept. That is, on how gullible we are. And if we are prepared to abandon various known tried-and-tested physical principles to accomodate dubious anecdotes, this indicates a higher level of acceptance, i.e. gullibility. To persist with that gullibility is merely to attempt to rationalise that abandonment.

Indeed there may be "invisible" UFOs above us, lurking. But to accept this, quite a few pretty much immutable physical laws and various rationalities need to be abandoned in order to proceed. That is, a significant loss of touch with reality...

The same argument applies if we accept the existence of consciousness. But accepting the existence of consciousness is not being gullible, it's simply what any sane person believes.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't know about images on the retina. But the mind fills in any abnormalities or discrepancies. They wouldn't see the ships (at a distance) in the same way as we do not see our blind spots.
yet again you show your lack of understanding of a subject Ian. The blind spot (there's one in each eye) is simply an area where we have no receptors as it is where the optic nerve goes though the retina.

Honestly 2 seconds research would have told you this.

So even if your story were true (it isn't) it wouldn't work like that.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Absolutely not. Ask any reseacher into perception what they think the likelihood is of this and they will tell you somewhere in the region of zero.
If you are seriously implying that the ships would have been to all intents and purposes invisible then you are compleely wrong and obviously know nothing at all about the psycholgy of perception.

Otherwise how does anyone see anything new and totally unfamiliar?

You have procvided a really good example of anecdotal evidence. You think this story may be true because you heard it somewhere. However there is not a single shred of evidence to bak up this story, and, indeed, anyone familiar with perception would instantly realise how ridiculous the story is.

How did people see the first television images? How did western explorers see giraffes? How do I see a new and impressive special effect in a film?
What is this mechanism that makes new things not register in our visual system? How would that work in evolutionary terms?
Where is the reseacrh to back up this random theory?

And why would floating structures of wood be so incomprehensible to Native Americans? They had buildings, they built boats. They would see people on the boats. Why is it so bizarre?
We see how quickly anecdotal evidence often falls down when it doesn't have evidence (or even internal logic). And that's why we discard it, otherwise lots of people might start believing the 'invisible ships' theory.

The difference here is the body of water. Viewing a huge unifrom body of water every day for all your life will put the mind (or structure the brain if you like) so that anything unusual appearing on the water will simply literally not be seen. The part of the ocean obscured by the ships the mind will fill in so it appears to be a uniform body of water again (until the ships come sufficiently close).

Donks

11th March 2005, 05:09 AM

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 05:14 AM

Ashles

11th March 2005, 05:17 AM

Ashles

11th March 2005, 05:28 AM

Hmm, it's gone quiet - do I hear the distant sound of Ian trawling through the internet to try and back up his "We don't see anything new" theory?

What will happen when he discovers no evidence for his theory I wonder?

Will he discard his incorrect assumption?

Or will he remain convinced that he is correct despite providing no evidence?

Or will he provide evidence of something completely unrelated and claim it backs up his theory?

Hmmm... I wonder...

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 05:39 AM

Given his past behavior concerning the checkerboard squares, he will most likely persist in repeating his stupid statement.
With no evidence whatsoever.

EHocking

11th March 2005, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Hmm, it's gone quiet - do I hear the distant sound of Ian trawling through the internet to try and back up his "We don't see anything new" theory?

What will happen when he discovers no evidence for his theory I wonder?
Does the movie "What the (*&Â£$ do we know about science" count as a cite?

(I don't think so!)

It's the only one I can find so far.

A perfect example of anecdote being used as evidence, ie,

"In the movie "What the bleep", they state that the native Americans......."

Ashles

11th March 2005, 05:42 AM

So boys and girls, bearing in mind how this thread has developed what do YOU think of anecdotal evidence?

Nex

11th March 2005, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...Interestingly if there were alien spacecraft patrolling our skies, it is not altogether clear we would be able to see them! Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!

...Indeed, and this leads to another point. Whether we accept anecdotes or not depends to a very large measure on what we expect. Now from a naive point of view this anecdote sounds wildly implausible. Once you are acquainted though with philosophy and the psychology of perception, then this anecdote is not surprising at all, and there is a very good chance it is true.

That old anecdote is entirely false.

Go ahead and do a Google search. The only places it shows up are on sites discussing that horrible movie "What the %@# Do We Know?" Just shows how well fans of that movie pay attention to... well, anything.

That anecdote was most thoroughly debunked in James W. Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me (1995), though other history books have done so as well. It has been well-established that the Tainos (the Native Americans who first greeted Columbus) had been in trade with ocean-going West Africans for years by the time Columbus sailed. There are guanine (an African alloy of gold, silver, and copper) artifacts and Native American remains showing sign of African diseases to support this theory. The Tainos knew full well what an ocean-going ship was, and most likely had seen Columbus coming days before he actually set foot on land.

Feel free to look it up and learn more.

*edited for typos*

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 06:03 AM

Still no reply from the "psychology of perception" impaired one.
I see he's posted elsewhere, so he must be avoiding this thread.

Gr8wight

11th March 2005, 06:03 AM

I didn't vote. Polls are meaningless instruments that do not, in any way, reflect a true picture of the opinions of the majority. Wirness the results of the exit polls in the last US election. Anyone who puts any faith whatsoever in any poll after that is simply blinding himself.

Also, metaphysic is not, has never been, and will never be a noun.

edited to add: the coloured lines sure are purty, though

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Not at all. That is completely wrong , demonstrating your ignorance of the psychology of perception.
But you have demonstrated that amply before, with your insistence that the checkerboard squares were, in fact, different shades.

The checkerboard square illusion suggests I'm right. We don't see what is "actually there".

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The checkerboard square illusion suggests I'm right. We don't see what is "actually there".
No. You are absolutely wrong.

Nex

11th March 2005, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The checkerboard square illusion suggests I'm right. We don't see what is "actually there".

But yet you ignore my post?

C'mon, Ian. If you have a rebuttal, now's your time. :)

EHocking

11th March 2005, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The difference here is the body of water. Viewing a huge unifrom body of water every day for all your life will put the mind (or structure the brain if you like) so that anything unusual appearing on the water will simply literally not be seen. The part of the ocean obscured by the ships the mind will fill in so it appears to be a uniform body of water again (until the ships come sufficiently close). I would hazard that the complete opposite is the case. A sailer or fisherman who gazes at the same body of water and sky for all their life is *more* likely to notice differences in the landscape.

Here's an anecdote for you.

All my father's life, until he was in his mid-20's, there was a local factory that had a pile-driver that operated practically 24hours, 7 days a week. Then the factory shut down. My father's description of that day was that he felt he had gone deaf, since he wasn't hearing the constant pounding of the pile-driver that his mind had got used to over the years.

You are more prone to notice the unusual than ignore it, surely?

Another one, when travelling for 6 months in outback Australia in the '70s, we protected the car's windscreen from damage with a metal mesh screen (1cm spacing) in front of it, as back then, most of the outback highways were not paved. For the first few days we were very conscious of the mesh in front of the windscreen, but fairly soon we "filtered" it out of our perception. That is, until we *removed* it. This invariably elicited comments like, "Did someone clean the windscreen?"

So, first of all, we noticed something new in our line of sight, then learned to ignore it as being unimportant visual data. When the item is removed, we notice it.

I encounter the same sensation frequently, when swapping between wearing glasses and contact lenses.

Sorry, Ian, I just don't buy the Columbus story and believe it was either invented out of whole cloth for a movie, or is a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of someones paper on perception.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Nex
That anecdote is entirely false.

Go ahead and do a Google search. The only places it shows up are on sites discussing that horrible movie "What the %@# Do We Know?" Just shows how well fans of that movie pay attention to... well, anything.

Horrible movie? I thought it was quite good. Didn't say anything I didn't know already though.

That anecdote was most thoroughly debunked in James W. Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me (1995), though other history books have done so as well.

It has been well-established that the Tainos (the Native Americans who first greeted Columbus) had been in trade with ocean-going West Africans for years by the time Columbus sailed. There are guanine (an African alloy of gold, silver, and copper) artifacts and Native American remains showing sign of African diseases to support this theory. The Tainos knew full well what an ocean-going ship was, and most likely had seen Columbus coming days before he actually set foot on land.

Feel free to look it up and learn more. [/B]

That's absolutely fine. But if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect. That's the pertinent point.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Will he discard his incorrect assumption?

Or will he remain convinced that he is correct despite providing no evidence?

Or will he provide evidence of something completely unrelated and claim it backs up his theory?
I see I left off an option.

Option D:

Ian will use his misunderstanding of something else to back up his false claim here.

An unusual choice but Interesting nonetheless.

Nex

11th March 2005, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...That's absolutely fine. But if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect. That's the pertinent point.
*gasp!*

Is this Ian's version of conceding a point? Pardon me while I bask... :D

Do you have a verifiable account of this perception-theory of yours ever happening?

Take your time...

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Horrible movie? I thought it was quite good. Didn't say anything I didn't know already though.

That's absolutely fine. But if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect. That's the pertinent point.
No it isn't pertinent at all, because it is not how visual perception works.
As someone who has actually published in the psychology of perception, I'll have to say that you know absolutely nothing about it.
Not surprizing, really. That hasn't stopped you before.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Hmm, it's gone quiet - do I hear the distant sound of Ian trawling through the internet to try and back up his "We don't see anything new" theory?

No, I've just received my new vcr and dvd player. I'm trying to set it up and understand the instructions.

I'm not interested in looking anything up. BTW it's also been reported that primitive tribes can't see jet aircraft. I suspect they can see, but they just don't notice.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No. You are absolutely wrong.

Ummm . .tell me . .why do you think we do not see our blind spots??

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Nex
But yet you ignore my post?

C'mon, Ian. If you have a rebuttal, now's your time. :)

Huh?? I'm only just looking at the thread again!

Ashles

11th March 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's absolutely fine. But if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect. That's the pertinent point.
Ian you are wrong, and I assume you have checked the internet and seen there is no evidence to support your theory.

A knowledgable person might be considered to be someone who actually knew something about the subject and a rational person might be considered to be prepared to discard an incorrect theory if evidence did not support him.
Can't see either of these descriptions suiting you here Ian.

What you might personally expect as a theory has absolutely nothing to do with how the world really works.

Once again you are utterly and totally wrong and refuse to accept it.
Watching you come up with incorrect theory after incorrect theory out of thin air has stopped being amusing and is starting to get a little worrying.

I worry about what will happen if you ever get to a door that you think opens with a push, and subsequently discover it is actually a pull door.
You would be stuck there forever, pushing and pushing, shouting "A rational knowledgable person who knows about philosophy would expect this door to be a 'push' door so it must be a 'push' door!"

Donks

11th March 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . .tell me . .why do you think we do not see our blind spots??
Because that's where the optic nerve is, there are no light receptors there.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Nex
*gasp!*

Is this Ian's version of conceding a point? Pardon me while I bask... :D

Do you have a verifiable account of this perception-theory of yours ever happening?

Take your time...

I concede nothing. I do not know whether this anecdote is true or not. But that's besides the point. The point is that it's very plausible. It is how our perception works. I suppose I could look on the net for appropriate perceptual "illusions" to demonstrate this, but really, I can't be bothered. I want to play with my new toys (dvd writer, dvd player for TV).

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No it isn't pertinent at all, because it is not how visual perception works.
As someone who has actually published in the psychology of perception, I'll have to say that you know absolutely nothing about it.
Not surprizing, really. That hasn't stopped you before.

I know nothing apart from my experience of perceptual illusions, and philosophical speculations. But that's all I need to know. Now if you've published on the psychology of perception, yet do not understand I'm correct, I think this is very sad indeed :( Anyway, I'm not interested in people simply saying I'm wrong. Prove I'm wrong. Start by explaining perceptual "illusions" :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Because that's where the optic nerve is, there are no light receptors there.

But why do still see at that particular spot. The brain "fills in", right?

Donks

11th March 2005, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But why do still see at that particular spot. The brain "fills in", right?
Yep. The brain takes the information fom the adjacent areasand fills it.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But why do still see at that particular spot. The brain "fills in", right?
Edited to say: I guess it would be fair to say it fills it in, but I think you are not grasping in what way it is doing this. It is not a high level conscious expectation mechanism, but a very basic feature of the visual system. So it is not like the ships theory.

But all of this is irrelevant to your theory Ian, which consists of the mind removing novel information from our vision, which, lest we forget, is just plain wrong.

You admit you know nothing about the psychology of perception. You basically admit you have read nothing on the subject and have never studied it. You even admit that you are not even interested in surfing the internet to find out about it.

And yet you claim that your invisible ships theory is correct?

Provide the tiniest scrap of evidence please, otherwise stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I concede nothing. I do not know whether this anecdote is true or not. But that's besides the point. The point is that it's very plausible. It is how our perception works. ..
No it doesn't.
You are deluded.

sackett

11th March 2005, 07:12 AM

I voted 4 because I'm up to here with that phrase "anecdotal evidence." Anecdotes aren't evidence. If observations aren't made systematically, they don't yield data; they aren't worth diddly squat.

I've also heard the phrase "testimonial evidence." That's even worse than anecdotal.

When Abel Tasman reconnoitered the coast of New Zealand in 1643, the Maoris could see him very well. They killed four of his men, and probably ate one of them. Doesn't sound like much in the way of cognitive incapacity.

But don't tell I.I. that. He has me on iggy. He's afraid of me.

rppa

11th March 2005, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Yep. The brain takes the information fom the adjacent areasand fills it.

Isn't it more than that, that there are small movements of the eye (saccades) so that the "blind spot" is actually covered by non-blind spots, i.e. every area of the visual field gets covered? If so, then the "filling in" would be an interpolation over time, not creating fictitious data.

At any rate I'm not sure what point Ian has about blind spots, if any. I like his version of citation though: It seems plausible to me though I've never read anything in this area. Therefore that's how the visual system works.

rppa

11th March 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I concede nothing. I do not know whether this anecdote is true or not. But that's besides the point. The point is that it's very plausible.

In the urban legends newsgroup, this is known as "It could be true, therefore it IS true," and is the reason so many credulous people spread so many patently false tales around the internet.

Traveller

11th March 2005, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
..... if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect.

Excuse me for butting in late in the thread but I have to disagree with that. I am both knowledgable and rational and that anecdote is certainly not what I would expect.

My own experience would lead me to believe that the reverse is true; an unexpected and unfamiliar object in a familiar setting will register immediately upon one's perception, although it may not be possible to immediately identify it for what it is.

I wonder if what Ian is thinking of is our capacity to reject the relevance of any phenomena which does not fit in with our established world view. This is particularly noticeable in my own field of investigating aviation incidents, where it has been shown that once pilots have made up their minds about the cause of an aircraft malfunction they will ignore any evidence to the contrary, even if in full view on their instrument panels.

Donks

11th March 2005, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by rppa
Isn't it more than that, that there are small movements of the eye (saccades) so that the "blind spot" is actually covered by non-blind spots, i.e. every area of the visual field gets covered? If so, then the "filling in" would be an interpolation over time, not creating fictitious data.
I don't think so. If that was the case, the little two dots trick wouldn't work.

At any rate I'm not sure what point Ian has about blind spots, if any. I like his version of citation though: It seems plausible to me though I've never read anything in this area. Therefore that's how the visual system works.
Oh yeah, I don't see what blind spots have to do with anything either.

alfaniner

11th March 2005, 07:31 AM

Nex

11th March 2005, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I concede nothing. I spoke too soon... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not know whether this anecdote is true or not. But that's besides the point. What? You tried to support your opinion with a false anecdote. The anecdote was (beautifully :D ) rebutted, but still you push your now-unsupported opinion as fact?

This has gone from interesting to ridiculous.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point is that it's very plausible. It is how our perception works. I suppose I could look on the net for appropriate perceptual "illusions" to demonstrate this, but really, I can't be bothered. I want to play with my new toys (dvd writer, dvd player for TV).
You could take the ten or twenty minutes to support your theory, but you won't because you'd rather play with your gadgets? I call bullsh*t.

Coward.

Moose

11th March 2005, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But why do still see at that particular spot. The brain "fills in", right?

Nope, unless you're a cyclops.

Ever consider that you have two eyes, Ian? The blind spots do not overlap, nor do they involve the center of focus.

The brain isn't filling it in. The other eye is.

It is still detectable, though, if you're really looking for it. There's fewer rods and cones in the peripheral vision, so we're not really getting fine detail in any case. Even one-eyed, the blind spot gets lost in the clutter.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 07:46 AM

Let's see we've had a thread started by Ian whch could potentialy have been interesting.

We've had the preliminary reasonably sensible discussion.

Then Ian has used a ludicrous example to back up his theories.

We have explained to Ian why his example is incorrect.

Ian has countered that this is how he think it works so it must be right, despite the factthat he knows absolutely nothing about the area baing discussed.

We have explained again why Ian is wrong.

Ian has used an unrelated example to back up his incorrect point.

We have explained AGAIN why Ian is wrong and asked him to check the evidence.

Ian has refused to even look at any evidence.

So what's left of the Ian thread cycle...

Oh yes, Ian will call everyone idiots then storm off the thread vowing never to return.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Yep. The brain takes the information fom the adjacent areasand fills it.

And this might be the same for the ships.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Ashles

And yet you claim that your invisible ships theory is correct?

I do not say it's correct. I have never said that. What I said is that this anecdote ia a priori plausible. Obviously if it transpires they have had dealings with other ocean going people, then it becomes implausible.

But this is irrelevant to the original point.

Donks

11th March 2005, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And this might be the same for the ships.
Why? There is no lack of information in the case of ships. Do you have any evidence that this happens?

Ashles

11th March 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not say it's correct. I have never said that.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know nothing apart from my experience of perceptual illusions, and philosophical speculations. But that's all I need to know. Now if you've published on the psychology of perception, yet do not understand I'm correct , I think this is very sad indeed
You were saying... ?

(And it isn't plausible anyway because it is incorrect and this is not in doubt with anyone who knows anything about peception.)

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Nex

You could take the ten or twenty minutes to support your theory, but you won't because you'd rather play with your gadgets? I call bullsh*t.

Coward. [/B]

Certainly I would rather play with my gadgets. I've never seen a dvd before.

People on here don't seem to know or understand anything. My efforts on previous occasions to enlighten them have met with zero success. Therefore, using induction, I can conclude that this time also it will be to no avail.

And besides, I suspect that you guys already know about perceptual illusions. You just don't understand that everything we see is, in a sense, an "illusion". What we actually see is determined by what we have previously seen.

I don't see if there is any point in arguing about this particular anecdote. My suspicion would be that at a sufficiently large distance away, we would be able to see something on the ocean (even if we couldn't make out what it was, being too far away), where as these native americans would not be able to. You lot say the converse. Now unless we set up some sort of experiment to discover the truth, I do not see that there is much to be gained by continually arguing back and forth. If perceptual illusions don't have any influence on your thinking here then I think you have failed to grasp their significance.

{shrugs}

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's absolutely fine. But if they hadn't been in trade, and they have never seen ocean crossing ships before, then that anecdote is extremely plausible, and indeed what a knowledgable rational person would expect. That's the pertinent point.

At the Maya city of Tulum, they have a watch tower overlooking the sea. Why? Why on earth would they watch the sea if it never changed and there was nothing out of the ordinary to see? Why is the watchtower integrated into the defences of the city? Why did the Maya station guards to watch the sea every day?

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/ldumois/maya/maya16.jpg

The watchtower was built long before Columbus. So if the Maya had never seen sea going ships, and couldn't possibly have seen them even if they did appear, then why did they think it a good idea to build a watchtower to specifically watch the sea for them?

And what happened when Wilbur and Orville Wright flew the first aircraft? Did people queue up to testify that they hadn't seen it? Consider that many people at that time believed that a self powered aircraft was a priori impossible. So wouldn't it be even more likely that people wouldn't see it if they actually believed it was impossible? They saw it anyway...

Go back even further, to the first balloon. On 25th April 1783 the Montgolfier brothers flew their first balloon. Nobody in France at that time had ever seen anything like it. It caused quite a stir. Why? If people couldn't see it because it was a priori outside their experience? On 4th June they flew another one in public. People were amazed, and rumours quickly reached Louis XVI about it. How? How could a rumour about this amazing object start if nobody could see it?

Your anecdote is far from plausible.

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've never seen a dvd before.

Well, then it should be invisible to you, shouldn't it? :D

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
At the Maya city of Tulum, they have a watch tower overlooking the sea. Why? Why on earth would they watch the sea if it never changed and there was nothing out of the ordinary to see? Why is the watchtower integrated into the defences of the city? Why did the Maya station guards to watch the sea every day?

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/ldumois/maya/maya16.jpg

The watchtower was built long before Columbus. So if the Maya had never seen sea going ships, and couldn't possibly have seen them even if they did appear, then why did they think it a good idea to build a watchtower to specifically watch the sea for them?

And what happened when Wilbur and Orville Wright flew the first aircraft? Did people queue up to testify that they hadn't seen it? Consider that many people at that time believed that a self powered aircraft was a priori impossible. So wouldn't it be even more likely that people wouldn't see it if they actually believed it was impossible? They saw it anyway...

Go back even further, to the first balloon. On 25th April 1783 the Montgolfier brothers flew their first balloon. Nobody in France at that time had ever seen anything like it. It caused quite a stir. Why? If people couldn't see it because it was a priori outside their experience? On 4th June they flew another one in public. People were amazed, and rumours quickly reached Louis XVI about it. How? How could a rumour about this amazing object start if nobody could see it?

Your anecdote is far from plausible.

Please pay attention to what I'm actually saying when you read my posts.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People on here don't seem to know or understand anything. My efforts on previous occasions to enlighten them have met with zero success. Therefore, using induction, I can conclude that this time also it will be to no avail.
Well you are wrong so you wouldn't be enlightning anyone about anything.

And besides, I suspect that you guys already know about perceptual illusions. You just don't understand that everything we see is, in a sense, an "illusion". What we actually see is determined by what we have previously seen.
Not in the example you are talking about.

I don't see if there is any point in arguing about this particular anecdote. My suspicion would be that at a sufficiently large distance away, we would be able to see something on the ocean (even if we couldn't make out what it was, being too far away), where as these native americans would not be able to.
And you are still quite wrong about that.

You lot say the converse. Now unless we set up some sort of experiment to discover the truth, I do not see that there is much to be gained by continually arguing back and forth. [quote]
There have been thousands of perception experiments carried out.
This effect you have made up does not exist.
If I tell you that your name is really Tarquin and you tell me it isn't would you see any point in setting up an experiment to show me it wasn't? I doubt it.
If you want to go through life not knowing anything, and continually getting things wrong then that's your choice.

[quote]If perceptual illusions don't have any influence on your thinking here then I think you have failed to grasp their significance.

{shrugs}
When you ever find out wht they are and what they are caused by then get back to us.

Having said that if you have never had a DVD player and have just bought one then we probably won't be hearing from you for a while. They are really very good indeed. And comentaries are the next level in film appreciation.

rppa

11th March 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Go back even further, to the first balloon. On 25th April 1783 the Montgolfier brothers flew their first balloon. Nobody in France at that time had ever seen anything like it. It caused quite a stir. Why? If people couldn't see it because it was a priori outside their experience? On 4th June they flew another one in public. People were amazed, and rumours quickly reached Louis XVI about it. How? How could a rumour about this amazing object start if nobody could see it?

Your anecdote is far from plausible.

I suspect that racism lies at the heart of the "invisible ships" theory. We think it's preposterous that "perception works this way" for Europeans, but we're supposed to think it's plausible for Mayans.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've never seen a dvd before.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Well, then it should be invisible to you, shouldn't it? :D

Using the same logic we could never get to see anything.

http://www.geocities.com/ericsillusions/illusion070.jpg

Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Please pay attention to what I'm actually saying when you read my posts.

Ian, it's patently obvious that you are the only one who doesn't pay attention to what you are actually saying in your posts... :D

rppa

11th March 2005, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If perceptual illusions don't have any influence on your thinking here then I think you have failed to grasp their significance.

{shrugs}

OK, here's the significance: Every perceptual illusion I know of is based on the physiology of the sensory system in question. In other words, it would affect all humans with the same sensory apparatus in the same way (those based on color vision don't affect the color blind).

You are claiming that the existence of physiologically-based illusions implies the existence of culturally-based illusions. Please provide evidence for culturally-based illusions.

drkitten

11th March 2005, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Using the same logic we could never get to see anything.

Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines.

You're confusing "seeing" and "identifying." The primitive tribes "see," biophysically, exactly what we see. They just don't recognize what it is.

Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

Yes.

I do not believe that primitive tribes couldn't spot a dark spot on the horizon. I can well believe that they didn't recognize it as a boat. But the idea that it was invisible, as you claim, is ludicrous.

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by rppa
I suspect that racism lies at the heart of the "invisible ships" theory. We think it's preposterous that "perception works this way" for Europeans, but we're supposed to think it's plausible for Mayans.

I suspect you're right.

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Using the same logic we could never get to see anything.

By Jove! I think he's got it! :D

Exactly!

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

Evidence please? I don't know that about "primitive tribes" and I'd like to see the evidence that you do.

Not to mention the blatant goalpost moving going on here...

Ashles

11th March 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Using the same logic we could never get to see anything.

http://www.geocities.com/ericsillusions/illusion070.jpg

Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?
No, no, no Ian, we've already done the providing-an-example-of-something-completely-different-to-back-up-your-incorrect-theory stage of the thread.

It's all over bar the insults.

CFLarsen

11th March 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know nothing apart from my experience of perceptual illusions, and philosophical speculations. But that's all I need to know.

You do understand that you are so prone to being cheated by con-artists?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now if you've published on the psychology of perception, yet do not understand I'm correct, I think this is very sad indeed :(

Ian? Hello? Jeff is a psychology professor. Are you saying that you are smarter than educated people?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Anyway, I'm not interested in people simply saying I'm wrong. Prove I'm wrong.

No, Ian. You prove that you are right.

CFLarsen

11th March 2005, 10:02 AM

Chimera

11th March 2005, 11:08 AM

Sorry, coming in late on the thread.

To comment on the Native Americans' inability to see ships--the movie "What the @#$%" was my first exposure to that story/myth too. My thought was: if this were true, how would babies and young children get along in life, since just about every experience to them is new?

Jen

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
You're confusing "seeing" and "identifying." The primitive tribes "see," biophysically, exactly what we see. They just don't recognize what it is.

No, they don't! They do not see what we do. A congentially blind person made to see for the very first time doesn't see what we do.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
By Jove! I think he's got it! :D

Exactly!

Evidence please? I don't know that about "primitive tribes" and I'd like to see the evidence that you do.

Not to mention the blatant goalpost moving going on here...

Goalpost moving? What do you mean?

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
No, no, no Ian, we've already done the providing-an-example-of-something-completely-different-to-back-up-your-incorrect-theory stage of the thread.

It's all over bar the insults.

If you think it's something completely different, then you have completely failed to understand anything I've said. Surprise surprise!

It's simple, just as primitive tribes cannot see the stairs, so they might not be able to see any ships. It's essentially the same thing.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you think it's something completely different, then you have completely failed to understand anything I've said. Surprise surprise!
And if I were actually looking to learn anything from you on the subject of perception that might be a problem for me.
However as I know far more about the subject than you, and it is us who are trying to educate you Ian then I don't really think it is me who is 'failing to understand'.

It's simple, just as primitive tribes cannot see the stairs, so they might not be able to see any ships. It's essentially the same thing.
No it isn't. It's really a waste of time explaining to you why it isn't.

And, just for fun, please tell us how you believe a congenitally blind person given sight for the first time sees the world.

I am not saying you are wrong or right, I just want to hear your opinion first.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by J-No
Sorry, coming in late on the thread.

To comment on the Native Americans' inability to see ships--the movie "What the @#$%" was my first exposure to that story/myth too. My thought was: if this were true, how would babies and young children get along in life, since just about every experience to them is new?

Jen

If it is myth then it certainly is not obvious. The fact you raise the question of how babies and young children would be able to see tells me you don't understand. Babies and young children can learn to see relatively quickly. But they do have to learn. Seeing involves much more than the image formed on your retina. Seeing essentially involves an implicit low level theory about how the world is. This theory doesn't come ready formed.

drkitten

11th March 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It's simple, just as primitive tribes cannot see the stairs, so they might not be able to see any ships. It's essentially the same thing.

But you've already said that primitive tribes can see the stairs. They just see them as lines, not as stairs. They're not invisible, simply misinterpreted.

Similarly, Columbus' primitive tribesmen may not have seen his ships as ships, but they almost certainly saw something. But that's not what you claimed earlier.

Anything unusual appearing on the water will simply literally not be seen. The part of the ocean obscured by the ships the mind will fill in so it appears to be a uniform body of water again

Primitive tribes do (by your own admission) see "an array of lines"; they do not see a uniform blank page. On what basis do you assert that they would have seen "a uniform body of water"?

CFLarsen

11th March 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, they don't! They do not see what we do. A congentially blind person made to see for the very first time doesn't see what we do.

It would work both ways, wouldn't it? We would not "see" something the way indigenous people would see what they are used to "see"?

Can you give one example?

Or perhaps it only works one way? Is it only these non-white people who are not able to see what we Westerners can see? Are we simply too evolved?

Give an example, Ian.

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Ashles

And if I were actually looking to learn anything from you on the subject of perception that might be a problem for me.
However as I know far more about the subject than you, and it is us who are trying to educate you Ian then I don't really think it is me who is 'failing to understand'.

No it isn't. It's really a waste of time explaining to you why it isn't.

And, just for fun, please tell us how you believe a congenitally blind person given sight for the first time sees the world.

I am not saying you are wrong or right, I just want to hear your opinion first. [/B]

The congenitally blind person would not be able to see initially. He might have perfect vision, but he would not be able to see. That he would have to learn.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 11:52 AM

And is there any chance of a link to some research showing the Primitive Tribes/Stairs evidence?

I mean, if they found a tribe who had never seen or used stairs how could they identify a picture as stairs?

You might as well show them a diagram of a circuit board.

That illusion is usually an example of something else so, once again, could we have a link to this research please Ian?

Or is this another thing you have heard anecdotally?

And once again - this is a completely different example to the point you are failing to make.

Why don't you understand? Why? Is it a game you are playing? Are you just bored? Why can you not get this?

Interesting Ian

11th March 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
But you've already said that primitive tribes can see the stairs. They just see them as lines, not as stairs. They're not invisible, simply misinterpreted.

Similarly, Columbus' primitive tribesmen may not have seen his ships as ships, but they almost certainly saw something. But that's not what you claimed earlier.

Primitive tribes do (by your own admission) see "an array of lines"; they do not see a uniform blank page. On what basis do you assert that they would have seen "a uniform body of water"?

I agree that the stairs example is not exactly the same. I'm getting at the fact that what we see depends upon an implicit low level theory about how the world is. As I mentioned, it is more like the blind spot with the mind filling in the detail so there doesn't appear to be anything unusual.

drkitten

11th March 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Or perhaps it only works one way? Is it only these non-white people who are not able to see what we Westerners can see? Are we simply too evolved?

Wade Davis presents a possible (albeit anecdotal) example in The Serpent and the Rainbow. If I remember correctly, he claims (of course, without details or attribution) that "primitive tribes" are capable of seeing the star Sirius unaided during the day, and that this ability has been lost to us Westerners.

I have been unable to find any evidence supporting the claim that anyone (primitive or not) can see Sirius during the day under normal circumstances. Seeing Venus in daylight is documented (for Westerners as well) as being rare but possible. (See, for example, the 1996 volume of the Journal of the British Astronomical Society.)

rppa

11th March 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it is myth then it certainly is not obvious. The fact you raise the question of how babies and young children would be able to see tells me you don't understand.

You also have not only illustrated ignorance about visual processing, but have explicitly stated you are not interested in reading anything that might impinge on that ignorance.

Babies and young children can learn to see relatively quickly.

Babies yes. But not young children. If the necessary neurological development didn't happen as a baby, it won't happen as a child.

But they do have to learn. Seeing involves much more than the image formed on your retina.

Yes, the processing happens in the brain. Specifically in the visual cortex. This is not a very high-level part of the brain. The cortex is the lowest-level portion of the brain. There is in no sense "thought" involved in cortical processing.

Much of the wiring which makes up cortical processing happens before birth. Some of it happens very shortly after birth. The "learning" involves cortical neurons being wired up to respond automatically to certain stimuli, such as "vertical bar moving right". It certainly doesn't involve anything as high level as language.

Seeing essentially involves an implicit low level theory about how the world is. [/QUOTE]

Absolutely not. Nothing like that happens in the visual cortex.

If you care to talk from a position of knowledge, you should start with what is known about cortical processing and cortical development in infants, which is a very great deal and which bears no resemblance to your theorizing.

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Well, then it should be invisible to you, shouldn't it? :D I wish I had typed that.

drkitten

11th March 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree that the stairs example is not exactly the same.

Acknowledged.

I'm getting at the fact that what we see depends upon an implicit low level theory about how the world is. As I mentioned, it is more like the blind spot with the mind filling in the detail so there doesn't appear to be anything unusual.

Unfortunately, the "blind spot" example is even less like what you want to describe than your obviously-false Columbian example. The blind spot phenomenon does not hinge on the "mind" filling in details at the sort of level where cultural or learned behavior would be relevant. You don't "learn" to fill in the blind spot any more than you "learn" to digest rice or "learn" to make your heart beat faster when you exercise. It's an extremely low-level neurological, not cogntive, phenomenon.

I do not believe, for example, that there has ever been a case where a person successfully "unlearned" the ability to fill in the blind spot.

Now, you're certainly right that to some extent, what we see will be interpreted in terms of our (higher-level) knowledge and background -- that's how I can tell my three black cats apart at a glance, and you probably can't.

But this has little to do with the reliability (or lack) of "anecdotal evidence." In fact, our tendency to interpret events mentally to fit into our existing cognitive framework actually works to reduce the reliability of anecdotal evidence. That's one of the reasons that placebo-controlled double-blind studies are so important in medicine, because otherwise people will reinterpret what they see to fit what they expect.

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you think it's something completely different, then you have completely failed to understand anything I've said. Surprise surprise!

It's simple, just as primitive tribes cannot see the stairs, so they might not be able to see any ships. It's essentially the same thing.
Not true. All of it.

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree that the stairs example is not exactly the same. I'm getting at the fact that what we see depends upon an implicit low level theory about how the world is. As I mentioned, it is more like the blind spot with the mind filling in the detail so there doesn't appear to be anything unusual.
You apparently are not conversant with the meaning of the word "fact".
Plus, anyone who would take more than 2 minutes to hook up a DVD player must be at least partially brain dead.

Ashles

11th March 2005, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The congenitally blind person would not be able to see initially. He might have perfect vision, but he would not be able to see. That he would have to learn.
Any more details than that? Surely you're not going to leave it at 'he can't see'?
Wha do you mean? He just has a totally black field of vision? What happens? Do you know any details?

alfaniner

11th March 2005, 12:33 PM

Once again, you have to understand that Ian is redefining simple words to meet his own needs, in the case the word "see". See, "see" doesn't really mean "to see", see?

How was this story originally documented anyway? Was there an impartial observer on the beach, eavesdropping on the natives? "Hee, hee -- they don't see the boats out there but I do!" Or did the natives say "Whoa! Where did you guys come from? We've been looking at the ocean for hours and you just suddenly appeared at our shore! Here, try some of the stuff in this pipe..."

Bodhi Dharma Zen

11th March 2005, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!

Like others have pointed out, I would like to see the reference for this. Now, I do think you have a point (contrary to everyone else apparently), because perception is a lot more complex than some naive views that has been exposed.

You need to know what you are seeing in order to, actually, "see it", or perhaps more precisely, to know that you are seeing X and not Y. Altered state of consciousness (because of damaged brains or drug induced) can show this.

(as a side note, where do you all guys find the time to post that fast!? I wanted to answer in this thread this morning and there are contless new posts now! :) )

I will read the thread later, and will try to come with my views.

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Goalpost moving? What do you mean?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you know that it is said that native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships because the vessels were so unlike anything they'd seen before? They didn't fit into their background theory of the world, so they literally couldn't see them until they were relatively close up!

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

Now you see it...now you don't...

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by alfaniner
How was this story originally documented anyway? Was there an impartial observer on the beach, eavesdropping on the natives? "Hee, hee -- they don't see the boats out there but I do!" Or did the natives say "Whoa! Where did you guys come from? We've been looking at the ocean for hours and you just suddenly appeared at our shore! Here, try some of the stuff in this pipe..."

When in doubt, do some research. :) I was trying to find the origin of the myth about the american natives not being able to see Columbus' ships. There is no such reference in any surviving original account. It appears that the myth probably originated in the late 19th century in books written by popular writers, and is probably based on a complete misintepretation of original accounts. The site below has a number of transcribed original texts:

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbmurray/teaching/files/

One of them, a transcript of a letter of 15 February 1493, contains the following text, which relates to Columbus' first encounter with the Tainos when he arrived at "the indias" - Columbus Spanish wasn't very good and some of it is archaic:

From: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbmurray/teaching/files/span364_2.pdf

Y no conocian ninguna secta ni idolatria, salvo que todos creen que las fuerzas y el bien es en el cielo, y creian muy firme que yo con estos navios y gente venia del cielo, y en tal acatamiento me recibian en todo cabo, despues de haber perdido el miedo. Y esto no procede porque sean ignorantes, salvo de muy sutil ingenio y hombres que navegan todas aquellas mares, que es maravilla la buena cuenta que ellos dan de todo, salvo porque nunca vieron gente vestida ni semejantes navios.

Y luego que llegue a las Indias, en la primera isla que halle tome por fuerza algunos de ellos para que deprendiesen y me diesen noticia de lo que habia en aquellas partes. Y asi fue que luego entendieron, y nos a ellos, cuando por lengua o senas; y estos han aprovechando mucho. Hoy en dia los traigo, que siempre estan de proposito que vengo de cielo, por mucha conversacion que hayan habido conmigo; y estos eran los primeros a pronunciarlo a donde yo llegaba, y otros andaban corriendo de casa en casa y las villas cercanas con voces altas: 'Venid, venia a ver la gente del cielo'.

Please excuse the lack of accents, my keyboard isn't set up for them.

Here is my rough translation:

"And they do not know of any sects or idolatry, but they all think that the forces and the good are in the sky, and believe very firmly that I with these ships and people came from the sky, and in such attitude (?) they received me to all ends, after having lost the fear. And this does not follow because they are ignorant, except of the very subtle ingenuity and men that sail all those seas. It is marvellous the good account they give to everything, because they never saw people dressed (like us) nor similar ships.

And as soon as I arrived at the Indias, in the first island I found, I took some of them by force so that they learned (how to communicate?) and they told me what was in those parts. And so it was that soon they understood, and us, them, either by language or signs; and this was to great advantage. Today on the day I brought them, they were always of the notion that I came from the sky, by much conversation which they have had with me; and these were the first to say from where I arrived, and others went running from house to house and to nearby villages (calling) with high voices: ' You come, come to see the people of the sky!'"

So what he is saying is that the natives were not ignorant or stupid. They were simply unfamiliar with some of the specific "arts" of the Spaniards. Elsewhere Columbus relates how he discovered that they had ancient legends about gods with beards (similar to Aztec legends of Quetzalcoatl), dressed in metal who lived in the sky. So when the Spaniards arrived with beards, dressed in armour, and in strange ships they had never seen the like of, some of the natives thought that they had to be the legendary gods who had returned - from the sky. So these natives assumed that the strange design of ships had something to do with coming from the sky, and they then went around telling the others that the Spaniards had arrived from the sky. They saw the ships arrive on the sea (Columbus also accounts how he met native boats far out at sea, and how when he arrived at the landing, many native boats came in from the sea to meet him near the island) but believed that they had to have really arrived from the sky instead because that was what the prophecy foretold. It is also likely that the natives misinterpreted various things in those earliest communications - Columbus certainly misinterpreted things that they said.

In later accounts, Columbus explains how the natives had good navigational skills (probably better than Columbus!) and knew of many islands in "the indias", some of which were very far away. Columbus notes that he was surprised how far at sea he would encounter native boats with lone fishermen, and that this indicated that the natives had excellent sailing skills.

But Columbus made many mistakes and clearly promoted a few legends of his own. He was convinced he was in China. When he asked the Tainos how to get to the court of the Khan (he didn't know the Mongol Khan dynasty had fallen) they directed him to Cuba! There were clearly misunderstandings. Columbus also reported cannibal tribes. But again, this was pure fantasy. The word "cannibal" was derived from a Taino word meaning "fierce". So when they told him about fierce tribes, he misinterpreted that as "cannibal tribes". Columbus spent much time looking for tribes of cyclopses and Amazon women because he had heard stories that these were to be found in China. Although he later accurately reported that he hadn't found any cyclopses, he did report that there was a tribe of men with tails in Cuba (based on a probable misinterpretation of a local legend).

There is one famous Columbus legend related by Columbus himself. He told a story about how he subdued a hostile tribe by predicting a lunar eclipse to the second by superior mathematics and pretended to blot out the moon by supernatural powers. The story doesn't hold up to scrutiny because if he had been able to predict the eclipse to such accuracy he would have had to have known his exact latitude and longitude - which he clearly didn't since he didn't realise that he hadn't been in China until after he returned to Europe! By all accounts, Columbus was something of a woo! :)

In any event, I think the story of the "invisible ships" is well and truly debunked!

Bodhi Dharma Zen

11th March 2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Here is my rough translation:

It is a nice translation ;)

The natives could not see Columbus as a man, or his ships as boats, that much is correct. I have to say that the premise that we cant see something for which we have no concepts is not absurd (as some people think), but I take it in this sense, as a difference in interpretation for the lack of common conceptual background, not as a lack of perceptual capabilities.

Jeff Corey

11th March 2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
It is a nice translation ;)

The natives could not see Columbus as a man, or his ships as boats, that much is correct. ..
Pardon? Whose testimony are we accepting? Some completely unbiased scholar?
I don't think so.

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
It is a nice translation ;)

Thanks.

It's difficult to translate exactly because there are some ambiguities. For example, "acatamiento" literally implies respect for, or compliance with authority, which didn't seem to make much sense in that context at first sight which was why I wrote "attitude" - perhaps what he was saying was "in compliance with this idea". "Deprendiesen" appears to be an archaic form of "aprendieron" (they learned). I couldn't quite make out what he was trying to say by, "Hoy en dia los traigo". He may have been referring to having brought some of his captured natives to land elsewhere where they then ran about telling others that Columbus was from the sky. And then there is that interesting bit, "por mucha conversacion que hayan habido conmigo", which implies either that he promoted the idea of his coming from the sky in his conversations with them - or that he learned of their beliefs because of those conversations - again ambiguous. I tried to leave the translation as close to the original form as possible rather than over interpret it with my own (mis)understandings!

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
The natives could not see Columbus as a man, or his ships as boats, that much is correct. I have to say that the premise that we cant see something for which we have no concepts is not absurd (as some people think), but I take it in this sense, as a difference in interpretation for the lack of common conceptual background, not as a lack of perceptual capabilities.

The important thing is that nowhere does it say that the natives couldn't see the ships - nor does it imply anywhere that they didn't realise that they were ships / large boats. The only thing appears to be the idea that perhaps they were "special" ships that could sail the sky as well as the water. And I don't believe they couldn't see him as a man, it was clear that they treated him as a man from other accounts. One of the ambiguities is in relation to their (alleged) fear of him. It appears that they didn't fear him initially, but at some point (in another account) he fired a cannon which cut through a number of trees, and it was from that point on that they regarded him with some apprehension. Columbus was certainly arrogant and somewhat oversure of his own importance. It is possible that the natives did not view him as a god - but that he might have rather liked the idea that they saw him in such a role and so convinced himself that they did.

If you read all the original accounts by Columbus, he certainly doesn't come over as someone particularly reliable or even stable. In fact, toward the end, he starts to sound like a raving lunatic! :D

I agree however that in this case there seems to be (at best) only a difference of interpretation not physical perception. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that we might not see something we had no conceptual background for - I'd need to see a specific example of that happening to accept the premise! :) If you are saying we might not be able to make sense of something we had no conceptual background for (as opposed to being unable to perceive it) then I would probably agree.

Chimera

11th March 2005, 06:19 PM

J-No:
Sorry, coming in late on the thread.
To comment on the Native Americans' inability to see ships--the movie "What the @#$%" was my first exposure to that story/myth too. My thought was: if this were true, how would babies and young children get along in life, since just about every experience to them is new?

Interesting Ian:
If it is myth then it certainly is not obvious.

Sorry. I didn't mean myth, I meant "anecdotal evidence". :)

Interesting Ian:
The fact you raise the question of how babies and young children would be able to see tells me you don't understand. Babies and young children can learn to see relatively quickly. But they do have to learn. Seeing involves much more than the image formed on your retina. Seeing essentially involves an implicit low level theory about how the world is. This theory doesn't come ready formed.

This isn't exactly what I meant. Yes, infants must "learn to see", as their eyes and visual centers in their cerebral cortexes mature. They have poor focusing and color discrimination. But by the age of 6 months most infants have achieved a near-adult level of about 20/20 vision, so you are correct about this process happening fairly quickly.

But, from your argument, a greater-than 6 month old baby or toddler would not be able to see, for example, an airplane or bird in the sky if he has never experienced this occurrence before. Is this correct?

Jen

Chimera

11th March 2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:
Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

I don't believe this. Where did you get this information? Babies as young as 6 months have pictorial depth cues--what artists use to make a picture look 3-D. Why would primitive tribes not have this? If they don't see "stairs", they certainly would at least see the illusion of perspective. Anyway, the point is moot if you can't provide the source.

Jen

rppa

11th March 2005, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Pardon? Whose testimony are we accepting? Some completely unbiased scholar?
I don't think so.

We're accepting Columbus' testimony, actually.

So... is there some reason we should trust his reporting of their attitudes of himself as a godlike being? Do we not think there may have been just a little bit of racism/egotism in this man?

At least now I know where the reports came from which mutated into "they literally could not see the ships." But I'm a little skeptical of Columbus as expert anthropologist or expert on human perception.

Lord Muck oGentry

11th March 2005, 07:12 PM

Interesting Ian,
Do you use the word "experience" as a success-word?

Pragmatist

11th March 2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by rppa
We're accepting Columbus' testimony, actually.

So... is there some reason we should trust his reporting of their attitudes of himself as a godlike being? Do we not think there may have been just a little bit of racism/egotism in this man?

At least now I know where the reports came from which mutated into "they literally could not see the ships." But I'm a little skeptical of Columbus as expert anthropologist or expert on human perception.

I personally wouldn't accept Columbus' testimony on anything, if you read through all the journals there are red flags everywhere. I gather that was what Jeff was referring to. But the way I see it is this:

1) Columbus was the only witness to the events who made a written account. That account is at best unreliable. If Columbus had said that the natives couldn't see the ships, I wouldn't believe him because as you say his racism/egotism made a big difference to his interpretations, and because he so clearly lied about many other things.

2) However, that account doesn't mention natives not being able to see ships. And therefore, because that is the only account, it follows that the "not being able to see ships" thing is obviously fabrication by a later writer.

3) The idea for that fabrication may have been premised on a misreading/distortion of Columbus' account, but we'll never know for sure.

4) The only thing we do know for certain is that the report about the natives not being able to see the ships (and the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from the account about it) is that it is not based on any factual record from the time and therefore is clearly false.

Like I said, debunked! :D

(oops, I just realised that 4 is incomplete, so I'll add point 5)

5) In addition to 4, the only other thing we know for certain is that facts and evidence will probably have no effect whatsoever on Ian's opinion about the matter! :D

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by J-No

But, from your argument, a greater-than 6 month old baby or toddler would not be able to see, for example, an airplane or bird in the sky if he has never experienced this occurrence before. Is this correct?

Jen [/B]

No not at all. At a very minimum you would need to get used to always seeing a sky devoid anything like planes and birds i.e to always have seen the sky as featureless apart from the clouds. That's why I said that if these native americans had had dealings with other ocean travellers, then this anecdote is unlikely to be true.

What I'm saying is this. If you had always seen a featureless ocean (or sky), and one day ships appeared on the horizon, then compared to someone who regularly saw such ships, then an anecdote relating that the former could not see these ships, where as the latter could clearly see them (even if not the details), makes it a prima facie plausible anecdote (at least once you are aware that the mind or brain fills in missing details in our vision). Now, whether or not the anecdote is true or not, is simply not relevant. I mean it's like the 5 apes (http://www.danieljanssen.com/wordpictures/apeexperiment.shtml) anecdote. Now that's a very plausible anecdote indeed, and I believed it had happened on first reading it, but it turned out it hadn't happened. But that says nothing against its plausibility. Hell human beings act like that, so apes should do too.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by J-No
Originally posted by Interesting Ian:
Primitive tribes do not see this as being stairs. Rather they merely see an array of lines. Are you still convinced that all human beings necessarily can see something if the image is on their retina?

I don't believe this. Where did you get this information? Babies as young as 6 months have pictorial depth cues--what artists use to make a picture look 3-D. Why would primitive tribes not have this? If they don't see "stairs", they certainly would at least see the illusion of perspective. Anyway, the point is moot if you can't provide the source.

Jen[/B]

I point you to N.R Hanson's Patterns of Discovery.

But it's obvious that they wouldn't be able to see stairs anyway. How could they if they have never seen stairs?? :confused: I mean why wouldn't it just be simply seen as a 2 dimensional array of lines??

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

2) However, that account doesn't mention natives not being able to see ships. And therefore, because that is the only account, it follows that the "not being able to see ships" thing is obviously fabrication by a later writer.

[/B]

WOW! My head is spinning with your illogic! Why is it obviously a fabrication? I mean if they had not had dealings with other ocean travellers it would be far from obvious that it is a fabrication given the prima facie plausibility of the anecdote.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

4) The only thing we do know for certain is that the report about the natives not being able to see the ships (and the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from the account about it) is that it is not based on any factual record from the time and therefore is clearly false.

Like I said, debunked! :D

Sorry, but I don't understand how it's debunked. Where is your actual evidence that it didn't happen?? You must provide proof. But I do not see how this can be provided. The most you can say is we do not have any reliable evidence that it occurred. Ummm . .yeah . .but this is an anecdote in the traditional sense, therefore by definition we do not have reliable evidence!

Come on Prag me old mate, you're gonna have to do better than this.

Chimera

12th March 2005, 05:48 AM

J-No wrote:
If they don't see "stairs", they certainly would at least see the illusion of perspective.
Interesting Ian wrote:
But it's obvious that they wouldn't be able to see stairs anyway. How could they if they have never seen stairs?? I mean why wouldn't it just be simply seen as a 2 dimensional array of lines??
You totally ignored my argument, which was (also see above) if they don't see "stairs" (since perhaps they are not familiar with the concept), they would at least see the illusion of perspective, which any 6 month old child could do. There are certainly other examples of this pattern in nature besides actual stairs, such as in a folded fan or accordian.
Interesting Ian wrote:
I point you to N.R Hanson's Patterns of Discovery.
This book you reference was published in 1958. Are there any more recent findings/corroborations on these ideas?

Jen

Jeff Corey

12th March 2005, 05:59 AM

Chimera

12th March 2005, 06:10 AM

Interesting Ian wrote:
If you had always seen a featureless ocean (or sky), and one day ships appeared on the horizon, then compared to someone who regularly saw such ships, then an anecdote relating that the former could not see these ships, where as the latter could clearly see them (even if not the details), makes it a prima facie plausible anecdote (at least once you are aware that the mind or brain fills in missing details in our vision). Now, whether or not the anecdote is true or not, is simply not relevant. I mean it's like the 5 apes anecdote. Now that's a very plausible anecdote indeed, and I believed it had happened on first reading it, but it turned out it hadn't happened. But that says nothing against its plausibility. Hell human beings act like that, so apes should do too.

It seems like you are saying, "I know it's probably not true, but it COULD BE! Dang it, it COULD BE!! ADMIT IT!!!"

I'm just wondering why the only references for this notion are the quote from the movie and Columbus' notes, neither of which really prove anything. Seems as though there should have been some corroborating evidence or at least additional stories of this nature in all the years since Columbus first interacted with the Natives. Why not set up your own experiment to gather some additional data?

Jen

EHocking

12th March 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, I've just received my new vcr and dvd player. I'm trying to set it up and understand the instructions.

I'm not interested in looking anything up. BTW it's also been reported that primitive tribes can't see jet aircraft. I suspect they can see, but they just don't notice. Now you are just trolling - unless you can provide documented cites of this new outlandish claim.

BTW - look up cargo cults.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

12th March 2005, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I tried to leave the translation as close to the original form as possible rather than over interpret it with my own (mis)understandings!

Indeed, its like translating some sort of poetry instead of a "normal" text.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The only thing appears to be the idea that perhaps they were "special" ships that could sail the sky as well as the water. And I don't believe they couldn't see him as a man, it was clear that they treated him as a man from other accounts.

A belief is a powerful thing, specially when related to things like gods. If a (non skeptic) individual were confronted by some "apparition" (lets think that someone has invented an holographic tridimensional projection that works everywhere) and an individual like him appeared and dissapeared, saying that he is "god", this individual would believe it, and will claim that he saw god without a doubt in his mind. I dont see why Colon, with beard and shinny clothes, coming in those "big colossal traveling things" could not be believed to be a god (you know the "arguments"; thats not the work of a man, obviously men cant do such a large boat, those clothes shine like the sun or stars, ergo.. and the like... I think it was an unavoidable conclusion for them).

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I agree however that in this case there seems to be (at best) only a difference of interpretation not physical perception. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that we might not see something we had no conceptual background for - I'd need to see a specific example of that happening to accept the premise! :) If you are saying we might not be able to make sense of something we had no conceptual background for (as opposed to being unable to perceive it) then I would probably agree.

There are literature in Cognitive Science about it, sorry, I cant remember any name at this time, but I dont see why it would be difficult to find something on the internet.

And yes, the later, I believe that if we have no conceptual background for some new perception, we cant possibly understand what we are seeing. This is easily shown with some perceptual illusions, and there are also literature about it.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by J-No
You totally ignored my argument, which was (also see above) if they don't see "stairs" (since perhaps they are not familiar with the concept), they would at least see the illusion of perspective, which any 6 month old child could do. There are certainly other examples of this pattern in nature besides actual stairs, such as in a folded fan or accordian.

This book you reference was published in 1958. Are there any more recent findings/corroborations on these ideas?

Jen

What's an "illusion of perspective"?

You only like recent books huh? I used to be like that :)

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Why should he? You made a ludicrous claim that violates what we know to be true about human perception.

Explain how it violates human perception. Also explain why we do not see our blind spots. In particular, what are we seeing instead of our blind spots i.e what is there in their place? It can't be the "real" world.

And there is no evidence that anyone said it happened except in fiction. Now Pragmatist is asked to provide evidence that it didn't happen?
Maybe in your bizarre world, but not in reality.

Well, if someone claims an anecdote is not of a real event, then surely they need to justify that assertion? Are we to take his assertion on faith? Why should I?

Donks

12th March 2005, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well, if someone claims an anecdote is not of a real event, then surely they need to justify that assertion? Are we to take his assertion on faith? Why should I?
How do you propose he present evidence that it didn't happen if the anecdote happens to be completely made up? Apart from the first person that presented the anecdote confesing they made it up, or someone having interviewed and asked the first natives Columbus met if they could see the ships, what possible evidence could he find?

Hawk one

12th March 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Explain how it violates human perception. Also explain why we do not see our blind spots. In particular, what are we seeing instead of our blind spots i.e what is there in their place? It can't be the "real" world.

Well, if someone claims an anecdote is not of a real event, then surely they need to justify that assertion? Are we to take his assertion on faith? Why should I?

Once again, and not for the last time, we see a feeble attempt of shifting the burden of proof. Pragmatist has already shown you how the myth of the natives literally not seeing Colombus' ship got started. You have already been explained how our eyes and perception works. What else do you need? Oh, I forgot, you're a skeptic, so this doesn't mean anything to you.

And once again, you have failed to provide evidence for the anecdote that the natives literally could not see Colombus' ship. No evidence whatsoever.
How does it feel not being able to do such a simple task, or being unable to admit even the possibility that you could be wrong? How does it feel never ever considering any other position than the one you've already taken? How does it feel being such a skeptic, Ian? And most importantly: Where is your proof that Colombus' Ship was invisible to the first natives?

rppa

12th March 2005, 07:53 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Also explain why we do not see our blind spots.

This has been answered.

In particular, what are we seeing instead of our blind spots i.e what is there in their place?

The part of the visual field covered by the left blind spot is filled in with data from the right eye. The part of the visual field to which the right eye is blind is covered by the left eye.

It can't be the "real" world.

It's very real. The data from your left and right eyes comes from the real world.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Hawk one
Once again, and not for the last time, we see a feeble attempt of shifting the burden of proof. Pragmatist has already shown you how the myth of the natives literally not seeing Colombus' ship got started.

He has? Where?

You have already been explained how our eyes and perception works.

I can recall no such explanation.

And once again, you have [b]failed to provide evidence for the anecdote that the natives literally could not see Colombus' ship. No evidence whatsoever.

Nor do I need to since I'm not claiming they couldn't. You need to argue that it's not a reasonable anecdote.

Where is your proof that Colombus' Ship was invisible to the first natives?

I don't have any. I simply have an anecdote.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by rppa

The part of the visual field covered by the left blind spot is filled in with data from the right eye. The part of the visual field to which the right eye is blind is covered by the left eye.

Nonsense.

Donks

12th March 2005, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nonsense.
Actually, it is not nonsense. Do the experiement here (http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_pictures_3/blind_spot_weird_shape.htm). The brain will only fill the blind spot when you have one eye closed. If you open it again, the blind spot is filled with the correct information.

Jeff Corey

12th March 2005, 08:13 AM

You can make your own stimuli to demonstrate that fact. Put the X and O on a patterned background, and the right eye will fill in the pattern.

Dr Adequate

12th March 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where is your actual evidence that it didn't happen?? You must provide proof.Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You need to argue that it's not a reasonable anecdote. :dl:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/burden_of_proof.jpg

Pragmatist

12th March 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Indeed, its like translating some sort of poetry instead of a "normal" text.

Apparently he was of Genoese (Italian) extraction, spent time in Portugal and then later moved to Spain, which would explain why he maybe had an odd writing style in Spanish.

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
A belief is a powerful thing, specially when related to things like gods. If a (non skeptic) individual were confronted by some "apparition" (lets think that someone has invented an holographic tridimensional projection that works everywhere) and an individual like him appeared and dissapeared, saying that he is "god", this individual would believe it, and will claim that he saw god without a doubt in his mind. I dont see why Colon, with beard and shinny clothes, coming in those "big colossal traveling things" could not be believed to be a god (you know the "arguments"; thats not the work of a man, obviously men cant do such a large boat, those clothes shine like the sun or stars, ergo.. and the like... I think it was an unavoidable conclusion for them).

Yes, but... :)

Firstly, there is a vast qualitative difference in someone appearing out of thin air and someone in strange clothes sailing up on a beach in a funny ship. We must be careful not to project our prejudices onto these people - even Columbus himself says that they were neither ignorant nor stupid. But, the real issue in this case is not whether it was possible that they might have thought him a god, but rather whether they did think him to be a god. And the evidence for the latter is distinctly shaky at best. The weakness of the case is clear on further examination of the original material.

Columbus first encountered the natives on 12th October 1492. The log entry is dated "Jueves, 11 de Octubre" because the log was opened in the evening of the 11th and carried through to the 12th. So 12th October is Columbus' first encounter with a totally alien (to him) culture with an unknown language.

Skip ahead 2 days to 14th October, the Sunday. The log entry (relating to the morning of that day) reads:

Y vi luego dos or tres, y la gente que venia todos a la playa llamandonos y dando gracias a Dios; los unos nos traian agua, otros otras cosas de comer; otros, cuando veian que yo no curaba de ir a terra, se echaban a la mar nadando y venian, y entendiamos que nos preguntaban si eramos venidos del cielo. Y vino uno viejo en el batel dentro, y otros a voces grandes llamaban todos, hombres y mujeres, 'Venid a ver los hombres que vinieron del cielo, traedles do comer y de beber'. Vinieron muchos y muchas mujeres, cada uno con algo, dando gracias a Dios echandose al suelo.

My translation:

And soon I saw two or three, and the people that came to the beach were all calling and giving thanks to God; some of them brought us water, others, other things to eat, others, when they saw that I did not care to land, they threw themselves into the sea, swimming and came (to us). And we understood that they asked us if we had come from the sky. And one old man came in a small boat, and others with loud voices called to all (of them), men and women, "You come to see the men who came from the sky, bring food and drink". Many men came and many women, each one with something, giving thanks to God and throwing themselves down on the ground.

O.K. it all appears quite plausible - except for the fact that Columbus and his crew have known these people for little more than 24 hours of actual contact. In that time they apparently have mastered the native language to such an extent that they clearly understand that these people believe they came from the sky and are gods...

But of course it begs the question of why Columbus had to subsequently capture 6 natives and hold them as hostage translators? Why? Since he clearly had such a mastery of the native language and beliefs?

Of course, the reality of the matter is that Columbus had no real idea of their language or beliefs. This was his personal interpretation of what he believed they were saying/doing. And we know just how accurate his beliefs in such matters were when we see his later misinterpretations about the existence of the cyclopses (he thought the Caribe had to be cyclopses), the dog tailed men of Havana, and the "cannibali", the terrible man eating tribes. And all of the latter errors occurred after he had taught some natives Spanish, and he had learned the native language!

This relates directly to the earlier passage I quoted. The ambiguity between whether they told him that they believed he had come from the sky, or whether he told them that - perhaps unintentionally, but through his personal projection of what he thought their beliefs to be.

So personally, I'm not inclined to accept Columbus' (clearly ignorant and arrogant) opinions as to the true beliefs of the natives. I accept that such a belief may be possible but there is no decent evidence that such a belief actually did exist - at least prior to him possibly telling them that he was a god from the sky, inadvertently or otherwise. And even the "inadvertently" is questionable given that he boasted of how he (allegedly) frightened other natives with his "supernatural" powers.

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
There are literature in Cognitive Science about it, sorry, I cant remember any name at this time, but I dont see why it would be difficult to find something on the internet.

Hmm...what was that about the burden of proof again...? :D

I'll admit I find it hard to believe, and I haven't really got a clue what I should be searching for anyway. But if you come across it, please let us know.

alfaniner

12th March 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... Where is your actual evidence that it didn't happen?? ...

Even after all this time, Thick-Headed Ian still doesn't get it.

Pragmatist

12th March 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sorry, but I don't understand how it's debunked. Where is your actual evidence that it didn't happen?? You must provide proof. But I do not see how this can be provided. The most you can say is we do not have any reliable evidence that it occurred. Ummm . .yeah . .but this is an anecdote in the traditional sense, therefore by definition we do not have reliable evidence!

Come on Prag me old mate, you're gonna have to do better than this.

I heard that somebody by the name of JimBob went to Stockton on Tees and met a guy called Ian. According to JimBob, Ian was a most curious character who admitted that he had a sexual fetish for dead sheep.

So there you have it folks, Ian is a necrophiliac sheep fetishist!

And please everybody, you must remember that you have to accept this assertion without question. It has to be true. O.K. it may not be reliable evidence, but this is an anecdote in the traditional sense, therefore, by definition we do not have reliable evidence that it didn't happen.

If Ian or anyone else wishes to challenge this assertion, you must provide proof that it didn't happen. And in the absence of such proof we simply have to accept it as true. Anyone got a problem with that? :D

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Actually, it is not nonsense. Do the experiement here (http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_pictures_3/blind_spot_weird_shape.htm). The brain will only fill the blind spot when you have one eye closed. If you open it again, the blind spot is filled with the correct information.

Point me towards the peer reviewed research please.

Donks

12th March 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Point me towards the peer reviewed research please.
So you can't click a link, close one eye, and then open it again? I'm not going on a fishing expedition just because you feel like it.

EHocking

12th March 2005, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Point me towards the peer reviewed research please. ... on Native Americans not seeing Columbus' ships and latter indigenous tribes not seeing airplanes.

Do you have no sense of irony?

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Donks
So you can't click a link, close one eye, and then open it again? I'm not going on a fishing expedition just because you feel like it.

Are you suggesting personal experience trumps any peer reviewed research? ;)

Or do you not know of any such research? ;)

Donks

12th March 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you suggesting personal experience trumps any peer reviewed research? ;)

Or do you not know of any such research? ;)
I'm suggesting neither. I'm suggesting you do the experiemnt yourself. If, afterwards, you are not satisfied or require the explanation of what is occuring, then you can go do the research.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Donks
I'm suggesting neither. I'm suggesting you do the experiemnt yourself. If, afterwards, you are not satisfied or require the explanation of what is occuring, then you can go do the research.

This experiment does not prove that one eye fills in the others blind spot. Keep one eye closed all the time. Do you notice any blind spot?

JPK

12th March 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I heard that somebody by the name of JimBob went to Stockton on Tees and met a guy called Ian. According to JimBob, Ian was a most curious character who admitted that he had a sexual fetish for dead sheep.

So there you have it folks, Ian is a necrophiliac sheep fetishist!

And please everybody, you must remember that you have to accept this assertion without question. It has to be true. O.K. it may not be reliable evidence, but this is an anecdote in the traditional sense, therefore, by definition we do not have reliable evidence that it didn't happen.

If Ian or anyone else wishes to challenge this assertion, you must provide proof that it didn't happen. And in the absence of such proof we simply have to accept it as true. Anyone got a problem with that? :D
No. No. No! Nobody understands Ian. Your conclusion does not follow. However since someone actually has stated the above to be true, this does in fact make it far more plausible. Surely something a sKeptic will dismiss (insert silly Latin here) .
Oh wait I didnâ€™t even bother to read what you posted because I canâ€™t be bothered to learn about what I intend comment on. There is no reason to understand a subject to comment on it.[/Ian impersonation]
Thatâ€™s the Interesting philosophy.
JPK

Donks

12th March 2005, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This experiment does not prove that one eye fills in the others blind spot. Keep one eye closed all the time. Do you notice any blind spot?
Try this, step by step:
1) Close your right eye and focus your left eye on the black dot.
2) Move closer/farther to the screen until the cross dissapears.
Here is where the brain would be filling the blind spot with information from the surrounding area.
3) Open up your right eye, the cross reappears.
Here is where your brain is filling up the blind spot with informtion from your other eye.

Jeff Corey

12th March 2005, 05:25 PM

rppa

12th March 2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This experiment does not prove that one eye fills in the others blind spot. Keep one eye closed all the time. Do you notice any blind spot?

Fact: The blind spots are not in the same place in the visual field for both eyes. Do you disagree?

Given that, that means that the information missing in each eye is available from the other eye. Do you disagree?

Given that the information needed is available, do you have some reason for thinking the brain doesn't use it?

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where is your actual evidence that it didn't happen?? You must provide proof.

quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You need to argue that it's not a reasonable anecdote.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]:dl:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/burden_of_proof.jpg

You're mixing up my posts :rolleyes:

The 2nd statement pertains to my original contention. The 1st statement is in response to the notion that the "invisible ships" anecdote has been debunked.

Please do at least try to keep up Dr A ;)

Dr Adequate

12th March 2005, 06:28 PM

Both posts are equally idiotic, and both involve your comic attempts to shift the burden of proof. Instead of denying that, which would be difficult, 'cos it's true, you deny that you were discussing the same thing both times, which of course I never claimed. Do you really think this makes you look smart?

Interesting Ian

12th March 2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Try this, step by step:
1) Close your right eye and focus your left eye on the black dot.
2) Move closer/farther to the screen until the cross dissapears.
Here is where the brain would be filling the blind spot with information from the surrounding area.
3) Open up your right eye, the cross reappears.
Here is where your brain is filling up the blind spot with informtion from your other eye.

Donks,

Forget about the other eye! Basically the same fundamental principle applies for both eyes as just the one eye. So let's concentrate on the one eye first of all.

What happens here?

Well, at a certain distance you cannot see the cross. But what does this mean precisely; perhaps that you see a dead black area where the cross is??

Ummm . .no. . . . what happens is that the "X" is replaced by the uniform background scenery. In other words the background scenery replaces the "x"!

So I think you must be compelled to agree, that at least with one eye [materialist mode] the brain makes a hypothesis of what should be there, and fills in accordingly[/materialist mode].

OK, now before I argue that it is not qualitatively different for 2 eyes, do people agree with what I said just above??

Donks

12th March 2005, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Donks,

Forget about the other eye! Basically the same fundamental principle applies for both eyes as just the one eye. So let's concentrate on the one eye first of all.
Ok, let's examine the one eyed case.

What happens here?

Well, at a certain distance you cannot see the cross. But what does this mean precisely; perhaps that you see a dead black area where the cross is??

Ummm . .no. . . . what happens is that the "X" is replaced by the uniform background scenery. In other words the background scenery replaces the "x"!
The brain will attempt to fill in patterns. A black X over a white background is very simple. More complex patterns result in more curious things happening. For example see here (http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/sh/330blind.htm) for 3 rather cool examples.
So I think you must be compelled to agree, that at least with one eye [materialist mode] the brain makes a hypothesis of what should be there, and fills in accordingly[/materialist mode].
Yes, I agree.
OK, now before I argue that it is not qualitatively different for 2 eyes, do people agree with what I said just above??
I do.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Pardon? Whose testimony are we accepting? Some completely unbiased scholar?

You've found an unbiased scholar??!!??

Lord Muck oGentry

12th March 2005, 07:00 PM

Interesting Ian,
You referred, in reply to J-no, to Hanson's "Patterns of Discovery". Here is a link:
http://www.uwichill.edu.bb/bnccde/ph29a/hanson.html
Why do you think that Hanson's opinions support yours?
When you have dealt with that question, you may want to answer one that I asked earlier: are you using "experience" as a success-word?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

12th March 2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Firstly, there is a vast qualitative difference in someone appearing out of thin air and someone in strange clothes sailing up on a beach in a funny ship. We must be careful not to project our prejudices onto these people

I see no difference, Europe was about 1000 years ahead of America (in terms of technology), so for them, those big ships and strange metal clothes were "no human". Besides, Colon is not the only example of this, what about Cortez in ancient Mexico? Aztecs clearly believed he was Quetzalcoatl, a bearded god of those people (who promised to return).

And your last point, about not project our predjudices, I think thats exactly what we are doing when we try to imagine what they saw.

Perception is not the raw information input, it requires a background of memories and concepts to work. Without known concepts about shinny metal clothes and incredible large ships I think is not illogical to think that they saw something who seemed "unnatural" or "magical".

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I'll admit I find it hard to believe, and I haven't really got a clue what I should be searching for anyway. But if you come across it, please let us know.

What I just said, perception is a lot more complex than what it appears at first sight. Maybe this (http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/Secret.pdf) example can help. There are studies about autistic savant childs who can make incredible drawings. When a normal kid of about 4 years draw a horse he puts four legs, a big head and a body in very simple shapes. When a savant child is asked to draw a horse he trace, with astonishing detail, lines without any apparent particular order, it is later when a detailed image of a horse appears.

The explanation I like is that normal 4 years old draw their concepts, instead of just their perceptions. My conclusion; We perceive throughout our concepts, not "the world" directly .

Chimera

12th March 2005, 08:23 PM

Interesting Ian wrote: What's an "illusion of perspective"?
Techniques that artists use to create the illusion of depth, such as in the stairs you previously posted, or as in two convergent lines drawn on paper to create the illusion of traintracks spanning into the distance.

"Around 6 to 7 months (of age), babies develop sensitivity to pictorial depth cues--the same ones that artists use to make a painting look three-dimensional. Examples include lines that create the illusion of perspective, changes in texture, and overlapping objects (Yonas, Granrud, Arterberry, & Hanson, 1986, Infants' Distance Perception From Linear Perspective and Texture Gradients. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 247-256.)"

Anyway, if a 6 month old child can recognize the concept of depth in a drawn picture, it would seem that grown members of a tribe, however primitive, would be able to do it too.Interesting Ian wrote:You only like recent books huh? I used to be like that. Well, it's not just that it wasn't a recent book, but Amazon.com didn't list it as in print anymore, plus you didn't quote anything directly from it, so it's hard for me to know what your argument point is without purchasing a used copy of the book and reading the whole thing. But I noticed that "Lord Muck" posted a link about it, so I will check out what he has provided.

Jen (edited for grammar)

JPK

13th March 2005, 06:00 AM

Good morning.

Ian, is it possible that the tale of the invisible ships is being taken too literally? If I recall, in the series Cosmos, Carl Sagan tells a similar story. I donâ€™t have my DVD set with me. I will check it tonight. Some natives saw a ship approaching and it matched their beliefs that this is how their gods might arrive. They would not look at the ship in fear that to look at their gods, they would turn to stone or some other horrible thing. So in this case, if we are to believe it, it is not so much that the ships were invisible, they were being purposely avoided. Now how would this appear to the people on the ship? People that have little or no experience with the natives language or culture? Could this start a tale similar to the Columbus story?

JPK

Interesting Ian

13th March 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Donks
[B]Ok, let's examine the one eyed case.

The brain will attempt to fill in patterns. A black X over a white background is very simple. More complex patterns result in more curious things happening. For example see here (http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/sh/330blind.htm) for 3 rather cool examples.

Can't get the link. Sick of this sh*te connection of mine.

Interesting Ian

13th March 2005, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
Interesting Ian,
You referred, in reply to J-no, to Hanson's "Patterns of Discovery". Here is a link:
http://www.uwichill.edu.bb/bnccde/ph29a/hanson.html
Why do you think that Hanson's opinions support yours?
When you have dealt with that question, you may want to answer one that I asked earlier: are you using "experience" as a success-word?

Don't believe this, I can't get this link either! Might complain to my isp.

Pragmatist

13th March 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I see no difference, Europe was about 1000 years ahead of America (in terms of technology), so for them, those big ships and strange metal clothes were "no human". Besides, Colon is not the only example of this, what about Cortez in ancient Mexico? Aztecs clearly believed he was Quetzalcoatl, a bearded god of those people (who promised to return).

And your last point, about not project our predjudices, I think thats exactly what we are doing when we try to imagine what they saw.

Perception is not the raw information input, it requires a background of memories and concepts to work. Without known concepts about shinny metal clothes and incredible large ships I think is not illogical to think that they saw something who seemed "unnatural" or "magical".

It seems to me that we're straying into quite different territory than the original issue. But I would like to address some of these points.

Firstly I disagree that "Europe was about 1000 years ahead of America (in terms of technology)". You are talking about the "dark ages"! Remember, plague, inquisition, etc? The Aztec, Maya and Inca civilizations had extensive development that far exceeded that of Europe in various areas at that time. The fact that their technology was different to European, in no way implies "inferior". Remember that the Aztecs viewed the Spaniards as filthy barbarians - most Aztec homes had clean, fresh running water on tap and efficient sewerage systems. Their agricultural technology was extremely well developed, using hydroponic techniques among others. You only have to look at Bernal Diaz del Castillo's account of what they saw when they first entered Tenochtitlan - he described it as an amazingly advanced civilisation with wonders that put Europe to shame. The Aztecs had superior metal working skills - but they didn't have iron. The key advantage that the Spaniards had was simply that they had guns - and also that they were carrying terrible diseases which the natives had no natural immunity to.

Now, you are making my point. We are projecting our prejudices when we try to imagine what they saw. My point is simply that we don't know what they saw. I am not saying that they didn't see Spaniards as gods etc., I am saying that the accounts that claim they did are highly suspect for other reasons. I strongly recommend anyone interested to search out the original accounts and histories and study them properly - because it shows a fascinating picture of political and religious intrigue that was basically used to excuse naked greed and unwarranted aggression by the Spaniards against the natives. It is not me who is representing that they saw something - I am questioning how anyone else could know what they saw, or how seriously we should take such accounts.

For example, in respect of the invasion of Mexico, there are four sets of major accounts (and various minor ones, but I'll concentrate on the major ones). One is by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquistadors. Another is a surviving Aztec account by an unknown author, the third is by Alvar Nunez Cabeza del la Vaca, and the last by Bartholme de las Casas, the biographer of Colon. Compare those accounts and you start to see some very interesting things. Only Diaz del Castillo and the Aztec author were present for the key events involving Cortez. However, Cabeza del la Vaca mounted his own expedition a few years after Cortez and de las Casas simply collected testimony and writings of others - some of whom were eye witnesses. What is interesting is that all of the latter 3 accounts differ significantly from that of Diaz del Castillo. Why? None of the others had any proprietary interest in maintaining a "justification" for the invasion.

To put matters into perspective, Cortez's mission was illegal. He had no authority to invade Mexico (the Spaniards actually sent a later expedition to arrest him - which failed). From the point of view of Spain, which was heavily influenced by the Catholic church, there were only a limited number of grounds that would justify (to the church) wholesale agression against an otherwise peaceful people, and those were essentially:

a) Idolatry
b) Human sacrifice and in particular, cannibalism
c) Pre-emptive attack
d) Other "ungodly" practises such as sodomy.

Now look closely at those first accounts. The very first thing that Cortez (and even Colon) were looking for was some evidence of such things that would justify an attack. Remember Colon's statement about the Tainos that they did not engage in idolatry? Look closer - he actually writes to the king of Spain that such a people should not require "intervention" because he can't find anything that would require it. And then, later, he justifies his own attacks on the natives because they worship false gods (him)! And because he believes that some of them ought to be cannibals! But in the case of Cortez, he immediately reports having found hard evidence of all the forbidden practices. His own account (as related by Diaz del Castillo) is interestingly inconsistent. At one point he relates having witnessed the ritual slaughter of thousands on the altars of Tenochtitlan for the purposes of false religion and cannibalism. Elsewhere, later he relates having seen only 5 or 6 "altar killings", all of which were formal executions of criminals, and even says that they were justified - no cannibalism mentioned. After explaining that the Aztecs were bloodthirsty savages, Cortez himself arranges the burning at the stake of some minor Aztec chieftans! It would take ages to go into detail, but there is inconsistency after inconsistency - so much so, that de las Casas and Cabeza de Vaca felt compelled to report to the church that they believed the accounts of the savagery of the Aztecs to have been fabricated by Cortez.

Anyway, to get back to the original point, in amongst those accounts we hear of Cortez having been mistaken for Quetzalcoatl by the Aztecs. But those very same accounts (mainly by Diaz del Castillo) also clearly relate how they won several battles due to the physical intervention of the virgin Mary! Yep, those same "reliable" witnesses say quite emphatically that the virgin Mary materialised on the field of battle and killed Aztecs! One of the accounts, by Pedro de Alvarado, justfying his slaughter of Aztec noble men, explains how the power of god miraculously manifested and protected the holy cross when the Aztecs allegedly tried to defile it and how the virgin Mary appeared and told him to kill the Aztecs. What is even more interesting is that Cortez clearly didn't believe a word of it when he wanted to court martial Alvarado, but ended up having to accept it, because it was simply the very same excuse that he himself was using to justify his own actions to the church in Spain! It's amazing how, mainly through cultural "sanitization" the original stories have changed. The key element that runs through many of the accounts is that events were "doctored" to maintain the support of the church in Spain. Cortez feels obliged to point out that the Aztecs worship false gods - to the extent of mistaking him for a god. The fact that the Totonacs told Cortez of the legend of Quetzalcoatl long before he encountered the Aztecs is significant here. As is the fact that Cortez sought support from the Tlaxcala - even proposing to the Tlaxcala that he might be able to get a force into Tenochtitlan if the Aztecs thought that he could be Quetzalcoatl. So again, it all comes back to an earlier point I made. Did these natives (Tainos and Aztecs etc.) genuinely believe Colon and Cortez to be legendary gods on sight, or did these conquistadors exploit local legends by representing themselves as such first? We don't know - but the accounts we base such considerations on are all written by the conquistadors themselves and are highly suspect. They are also in stark contradiction with the accounts of others with first hand experience like Cabeza de la Vaca.

My view is that the historical evidence in favour of the idea that these natives were fooled by their own misperceptions is weak and untrustworthy. In light of the political (and religious) landscape of the time, the evidence does tend to suggest that the only people fooled by all this were the rather naive officials of the Catholic church, not the natives.

There is no question that the Spaniards represented something quite unusual or even "unnatural" to the american natives. Their ships, their armour, and even their horses were surprising and somewhat unsettling to the natives - one of the Aztec accounts even confirms this by describing them as "grotesque". But all the rest - the idea that the ships of Colon were invisible, is not confirmed in any historical evidence and the ideas that Colon and Cortez were automatically mistaken for gods are at best, highly suspect. It was historically, socially and politically convenient for certain parties to represent the american natives as deluded, savage and evil primitives - and in consideration of this I think we shouldn't accept such accounts without question.

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
What I just said, perception is a lot more complex than what it appears at first sight. Maybe this (http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/Secret.pdf) example can help. There are studies about autistic savant childs who can make incredible drawings. When a normal kid of about 4 years draw a horse he puts four legs, a big head and a body in very simple shapes. When a savant child is asked to draw a horse he trace, with astonishing detail, lines without any apparent particular order, it is later when a detailed image of a horse appears.

The explanation I like is that normal 4 years old draw their concepts, instead of just their perceptions. My conclusion; We perceive throughout our concepts, not "the world" directly .

This is quite different to the proposition in question - which is that is it possible that something outside the experience/conception of normal people could actually be totally invisible to them although physically present? I don't dispute that some people may see/interpret things differently, but I take issue at the claim that such things could be totally invisible. To be honest, I don't see how that paper addresses the issue at all. For example, there are lots of people who don't draw well - that doesn't imply that their perception is at fault - or that autistic perception is more "raw". There is a large issue related to the fact that drawing is a motor skill, not an issue of direct perception. And I would be very cautious about extrapolating child related data to adults.

Obviously, perception can be biased by a whole range of factors, including cultural ones. But it's a question of degree - the issue in this case is not whether someone saw a physical object differently as a result of some cultural or conceptual bias - but rather if it is possible that they couldn't see it at all. It's that that I've seen no evidence in support of.

Jeff Corey

13th March 2005, 02:49 PM

I'm shocked that no one's brought up the gorilla at the basketball game.

Donks

13th March 2005, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I'm shocked that no one's brought up the gorilla at the basketball game.
There is no gorilla. It's a trick.

Jeff Corey

13th March 2005, 03:22 PM

OK, it's not a real gorilla that's invisible. It's a guy dressed up like Christopher Colombus.

Interesting Ian

13th March 2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I'm shocked that no one's brought up the gorilla at the basketball game.

Precisely. I never saw the gorilla, therefore, in a sense, it was invisible.

Jeff Corey

13th March 2005, 04:57 PM

Joined the Choir Invisible, along with Colombus and the gorilla?
And the Ex Chapman who can never even do a walk on at "Spamalot",
eat yer heart out Claus. If you were still in NYC, you'd want to go.

Ashles

14th March 2005, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
OK, it's not a real gorilla that's invisible. It's a guy dressed up like Christopher Colombus.
Oh Jeff, why did you bring up the Gorilla. Now Ian's gone down the route of thinking that that backs up his theory.

Honestly, I know about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves, but there's no need to then give them a loaded gun, hand grenade, cyanide capsules, dynamite, beartraps, matches, a plastic bag with no airholes, a guillotine and anthrax.

Great blind spot examples BTW. Let's see Ian redefine those as 'cultural' illusions (as opposed to very low-level visual processing that would happen with anyone - even Native Americans).

Pragmatist

14th March 2005, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
OK, it's not a real gorilla that's invisible. It's a guy dressed up like Christopher Colombus.

But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :D

Bodhi Dharma Zen

14th March 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
It seems to me that we're straying into quite different territory than the original issue. But I would like to address some of these points.

That was a nice post, very informative, obviously your knowledge about all that is far greater than mine ;) Its true, there had a different civilization, greater in some senses but with much less firepower (which was a shame and very sad). And yes, we are off topic here, but its because I wanted to make clear my point.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
So again, it all comes back to an earlier point I made. Did these natives (Tainos and Aztecs etc.) genuinely believe Colon and Cortez to be legendary gods on sight, or did these conquistadors exploit local legends by representing themselves as such first? We don't know - but the accounts we base such considerations on are all written by the conquistadors themselves and are highly suspect.

I still think is plausible, every historic account of old civilizations shows that people has always considered the possibility of seeing and interacting with a bodied god. Anyone different enought to be taken as a god could have been taken as one.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
My view is that the historical evidence in favour of the idea that these natives were fooled by their own misperceptions is weak and untrustworthy.

We dont agree, but thats ok.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
This is quite different to the proposition in question - which is that is it possible that something outside the experience/conception of normal people could actually be totally invisible to them although physically present? I don't dispute that some people may see/interpret things differently, but I take issue at the claim that such things could be totally invisible.

I have never said that the ships were invisible! only that if they didnt know what was infront of them, therefore, they couldnt prepare or take any precaution. They had no concepts for it, thats all.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Obviously, perception can be biased by a whole range of factors, including cultural ones. But it's a question of degree - the issue in this case is not whether someone saw a physical object differently as a result of some cultural or conceptual bias - but rather if it is possible that they couldn't see it at all. It's that that I've seen no evidence in support of.

Then maybe you need to read again what I was proposing. ;)