The Interesting Ian Thread

[Z]

Simple fact, Ian: the two squares are exactly the same color, under good light and relatively close viewing conditions (the light from the monitor, and however far your eyes are to it). They are exactly the same color, yet you still perceive a difference!

You've always been wrong on this one, Ian.

I guarantee I could set up a VERY simple test and you couldn't properly name any of ten colors in low-light conditions. Are the objects not really colored right, or is it just that you cannot perceive the colors that exist?

COLOR is not NOT NOT a purely subjective measurement. Color is indicated by frequency and wavelength of light. Your perception of color is an entirely different matter, and can be confused by processes within your brain.

BTW - The example of George Rodonaia has SO many holes in it...

First, it seems there are no independent records available of his injuries and 'death', aside from those he presents. Second, he is the ONLY one who told this story initially. His uncle, supposedly an attending physician at his autopsy, claims to have 'verified' this tale; however, how many hospitals allow family to conduct autopsies on family members? (Granted, in Russia, there's no telling).

Third: how does he know he was struck by KGB agents, who then backed the car over him 'to ensure his demise'? Fourth: Backed the car over him??? KGB agents??? The KGB were known for their care when dealing with murder; they'd have gone to much more certain means to ensure his death. They would likely not have even left his body laying around. But that's conjecture.

Fifth: The man was immediately pronounced dead (with no examination?????). That's unusual, at best. (This also, by the way, means that they did NOT determine if he was brain dead.) Sixth: He was quick-frozen - a technique which can be used to keep a person alive for much longer periods of time than ordinarily possible. Do some medical research, Ian. You could learn a LOT this way.

Seventh: He was struck by a car, run over again, frozen for three days, and had his abdomen cut open... yet made a full recovery with no brain damage, apparently, and very few scars, and in fact managed the lecture circuit for quite a while (earning a GREAT deal of fame and personal wealth) before his unfortunate heart attack... And this doesn't seem like a highly unlikely story???

What makes it even less likely - it's only ever his words reported (never any witnesses), and it's only ever reported on websites by creduloids - believers in Sylvia Brown, or the power of homeopathy, or the Apocalypse... There is absolutely no credible evidence that this is anything more than an anecdote, Ian. It's unverified, as nearly as I can tell!

In fact, his pattern is a LOT like KAZ's pattern, isn't it?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

If I experience an object as what I call "red" and your experience it as "green" (but still call it "red")

Interesting Ian,

In English? Pay particular attention to the distinction between experiencing
and experiencing as.

Regards

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Easy so long as you abandon the idea that there is a unique mind-independent reality which we all perceive differently. If I experience an object as what I call "red" and your experience it as "green" (but still call it "red"), what of it? We will still both stop at red traffic lights.
The difference between my experience of the flower and the insect's is not merely a matter of what we name the color.


Ian is using the term "colour" differently than you. In his terminology, "colour" is the sensation you experience, not a quality that the object has. I am inclined to agree with him to a point. The thing is that you're talking at odds to each other, since YOU intend colour to mean "the frequency of the light that is reflected from the object".
If you'll read up a few posts, you'll see that I presented Ian with various definitions for color and he chose the subjective one that he likes. So is the tree light green or dark green or gray?


The illusion shows that our perception is inseparable from our expectations and assumptions about how things work. Most of these assumptions are instinctive, and we don’t necessarily need to know the mechanics behind them for our brain to make accurate predictions.
Holy Toledo! What color is the moving square in the video? We can't just say one color, oh no. We have to compile a complex mapping between position and color, since it is obviously changing dynamically. And yet the lighting conditions are the same all the time. I'm so confoosed! :rolleyes:

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The important point is that it is not the case that one of us is right and the other wrong, or both of us are wrong. To assume that is to introduce the abstract metaphysical hypothesis of a mind-independent reality to which our respective visual qualia conform or resemble.
Ian, you're screwed. You've already told us that you have to assume "good light and relatively close up." What are those two requirements if not examples of the dreaded mind-independent reality affecting the perception of color?

If you want no mind-independent reality to be assumed, then the definition of color has to involve absolutely nothing except the mind's perception of the color of the object (wherever the object might be). In that case, no object has a single color, but rather a constantly-varying kaleidoscope of colors whose cause is entirely inexplicable on the basis of the mind alone.

~~ Paul

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Holy Toledo! What color is the moving square in the video? We can't just say one color, oh no. We have to compile a complex mapping between position and color, since it is obviously changing dynamically. And yet the lighting conditions are the same all the time. I'm so confoosed! :rolleyes:

~~ Paul

I suppose this is a slow man's thought. However:what are the different shades of grey that I.I. takes squares A and B to be?
Over to I.I.?

Regards

[Interesting Ian]

Simple fact, Ian: the two squares are exactly the same color, under good light and relatively close viewing conditions (the light from the monitor, and however far your eyes are to it). They are exactly the same color, yet you still perceive a difference!

You've always been wrong on this one, Ian.

I guarantee I could set up a VERY simple test and you couldn't properly name any of ten colors in low-light conditions. Are the objects not really colored right, or is it just that you cannot perceive the colors that exist?



All this is irrelevant. Very low light conditions may prohibit discriminating between similar colours, but this is not interesting.




COLOR is not NOT NOT a purely subjective measurement. Color is indicated by frequency and wavelength of light. Your perception of color is an entirely different matter, and can be confused by processes within your brain.



This is another example of skeptics/scientists hijacking a word and altering its meaning. Colour is a certain characteristic visual experience.


BTW - The example of George Rodonaia has SO many holes in it...


What do you mean so many holes in it. Either he was lying in the morgue and came back to life or he didn't.



First, it seems there are no independent records available of his injuries and 'death', aside from those he presents. Second, he is the ONLY one who told this story initially. His uncle, supposedly an attending physician at his autopsy, claims to have 'verified' this tale; however, how many hospitals allow family to conduct autopsies on family members? (Granted, in Russia, there's no telling).



Is that so? You certainly appear to know a great deal more about him than I do. Mind you I've never entered his name in a search engine.



Third: how does he know he was struck by KGB agents, who then backed the car over him 'to ensure his demise'? Fourth: Backed the car over him??? KGB agents??? The KGB were known for their care when dealing with murder; they'd have gone to much more certain means to ensure his death. They would likely not have even left his body laying around. But that's conjecture.

Fifth: The man was immediately pronounced dead (with no examination?????). That's unusual, at best. (This also, by the way, means that they did NOT determine if he was brain dead.) Sixth: He was quick-frozen - a technique which can be used to keep a person alive for much longer periods of time than ordinarily possible. Do some medical research, Ian. You could learn a LOT this way.

Seventh: He was struck by a car, run over again, frozen for three days, and had his abdomen cut open... yet made a full recovery with no brain damage, apparently, and very few scars, and in fact managed the lecture circuit for quite a while (earning a GREAT deal of fame and personal wealth) before his unfortunate heart attack... And this doesn't seem like a highly unlikely story???



I don't know. I've only skim read your post so it would be inappropriate for me to judge.



What makes it even less likely - it's only ever his words reported (never any witnesses), and it's only ever reported on websites by creduloids - believers in Sylvia Brown, or the power of homeopathy, or the Apocalypse... There is absolutely no credible evidence that this is anything more than an anecdote, Ian. It's unverified, as nearly as I can tell!



I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that insufficient attempts were made to ensure that he was indeed dead? Or are you denying that he came back to life whilst lying in the morgue? If the latter there are many instances of this happening. I just provided one example. I doubt that they are all fabrications.

If on the other hand you are saying there might have been insufficient tests to ensure he and others who returned to life in the morgue were truly dead, then this might or might not be so. I really have absolutely no idea. However none of this alters the fact (widely reported by NDE researchers) that some people who were ostensibly dead by the 3 fold criteria I previously mentioned, did actually return to life (or were never truly dead depending on your definition of death). Moreover the evidence indicates that they experienced an NDE during the time they were "dead" since they underwent an OBE part of an NDE and saw and heard comments made by people that they were now dead and reported other occurrences during this time which were subsequently confirmed by the people there.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is another example of skeptics/scientists hijacking a word and altering its meaning. Colour is a certain characteristic visual experience.
Roight.

1 a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b : the aspect of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources c : a hue as contrasted with black, white, or gray


~~ Paul

[joller]

What do you mean so many holes in it. Either he was lying in the morgue and came back to life or he didn't.
Many holes in his story would mean that it's much more likely that he was lying than it is that he wasn't, and if I remember correctly, you yourself said you tend to believe the more likely theory.
Is that so? You certainly appear to know a great deal more about him than I do. Mind you I've never entered his name in a search engine.
And you still used him as the best example of someone who woke up in the morgue after being pronounced brain dead.
So you just believed it because it was written somewhere in one of the books you chose to accept without ever questioning it.

Moreover "the 3v1d3nc3" (as used and understood by IAN) indicates that they experienced an NDE during the time they were "dead" since they underwent an OBE part of an NDE and saw and heard comments made by people that they were now dead and reported other occurrences during this time which were subsequently confirmed by the people there.
Hearsay and anecdotes.
Some people claim they saw fairies, they've got witnesses and even photos to prove it.
We just made a full circle and came back to Thaiboxerken's armpit creature.

[Z]

All this is irrelevant. Very low light conditions may prohibit discriminating between similar colours, but this is not interesting.

Actually, your statement demonstrates that even you don't believe what you're saying. After all, if you can't discriminate between similar colours, according to you, then they're not different colours at all.

This is another example of skeptics/scientists hijacking a word and altering its meaning. Colour is a certain characteristic visual experience.

Whatever. You're sooooooooooo predictable anymore.

"Waaagh!!! Rotten skeptic... I have no answer, so I'll just claim that they hijacked another word!"

What do you mean so many holes in it. Either he was lying in the morgue and came back to life or he didn't.

Either his story was true or it wasn't. Too many holes = fabrication.

Is that so? You certainly appear to know a great deal more about him than I do. Mind you I've never entered his name in a search engine.

Ah... so you've tossed out a name without ever once actually researching anything about it... Is this how you come up with all this garbage? Failure to do research? You heard it once, so it must be true?

It's no wonder you're so HS then.

I don't know. I've only skim read your post so it would be inappropriate for me to judge.

And apparently read nothing about the case in question.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that insufficient attempts were made to ensure that he was indeed dead? Or are you denying that he came back to life whilst lying in the morgue? If the latter there are many instances of this happening. I just provided one example. I doubt that they are all fabrications.

How would you know? You apparently don't bother to read about them or try to learn if they're true or not.

If on the other hand you are saying there might have been insufficient tests to ensure he and others who returned to life in the morgue were truly dead, then this might or might not be so. I really have absolutely no idea. However none of this alters the fact (widely reported by NDE researchers) that some people who were ostensibly dead by the 3 fold criteria I previously mentioned, did actually return to life (or were never truly dead depending on your definition of death). Moreover the evidence indicates that they experienced an NDE during the time they were "dead" since they underwent an OBE part of an NDE and saw and heard comments made by people that they were now dead and reported other occurrences during this time which were subsequently confirmed by the people there.

And not a single one of these anecdotes holds up under any real scrutiny, Ian. Which you might realize, if you bothered to learn something once in a while.

Simple fact, though - NO ONE who has zero brain activity comes back to life. And until someone does, OBE/NDE can still be seen as a hallucination brought on by brain activity under less than optimal conditions. But you wouldn't know that, being as you never bother to learn anything.

Throw out some more names... let's see what else you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker. You can't make yourself look more the fool than you do right now, Ian.

[sat556]

Morning Ian. I have an idea (don't roll those eyes at me). How about you use the words that you claim we are misusing in the sense that we are? We might find it a lot easier to get your point that way. It should be easier for you to do that than us to change because the usage we are using must have been used by your parents/friends/teachers etc etc, being as it is the generally accepted usage, whether that be by idiots or not.
Maybe then we can stop arguing about pointless things like that and get down to the real nitty gritty.

[.13.]

The more obvious straightforward hypothesis is to be preferred. If I visually perceive what appears to be a table, then I should assume it is indeed a table unless other evidence suggests otherwise. If we didn't assume this we would never be able to do anything.

But having an NDE is a bit different from seeing a table in you everyday life don't you agree? Brain is in quite a different state during the NDE so your example isn't really valid.

Why are NDEs evidence for survival hypothesis given that they can be artificially induced and they can be explained without the survival hypothesis?

[Belz...]

All this is irrelevant. Very low light conditions may prohibit discriminating between similar colours, but this is not interesting.

OF course it is! It shows that your perception is not the only factor in experiencing colour.

This is another example of skeptics/scientists hijacking a word and altering its meaning. Colour is a certain characteristic visual experience.

Right. There is "no" colour in real life. What ARE you perceiving, then ?

What do you mean so many holes in it. Either he was lying in the morgue and came back to life or he didn't.

Oh, well. I'm sure he came back to life, then. :rolleyes:

Is that so? You certainly appear to know a great deal more about him than I do. Mind you I've never entered his name in a search engine.

I don't know. I've only skim read your post so it would be inappropriate for me to judge.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm not interested in changing that situation."

Why are NDEs evidence for survival hypothesis given that they can be artificially induced and they can be explained without the survival hypothesis?

Yes, Ian. Please answer this.

[Dcdrac]

I once read that NDE is casued by a gland at the bottom of the Cerebrum that release a haluciogenic into the brain the action being triggered by low oxygen levels.

For the life of me I can't remember where i read that or heard it maybe one of you knows about it?

But it is a whole lot more beleivable than an afterlife.

[Hellbound]

Dcdrac:

Last I read on the subject, it's a combination of factors. Low oxygen (apoxia) affects retinal cells first, causing chemoreceptors to relax, flooding the retina with the color-reactive chemicals (would be seen as a bright white light). Some drugs can reproduce the "tunnel" effect and a floating sensation, including some of the drug compounds used by medical personnel or produced by the body during crisis. Visions of dead loved ones (or a religious figure pertinent to the specific persons cultural bias) would not be unexpected...as the brain loses the ability to see and sense the outside world, and as parts of it shut down due to low oxygen, the ability to seperate memory/fantasy from reality fades.

In fact, the religious visions in an NDE are the most telling. In the West, the majority of people see Jesus, Mary, Peter, and similar Christian figures. In the Middle East, Mohammad is in the majority. Similar effects occur in other areas...the religious figures seen reflect the predominant beliefs of the culture the person had the most contact with. Accoridng to Ian, this must be evidenc ethat ALL religions are right, I suppose.

[Dcdrac]

Thanks Huntsman

[Hellbound]

Oops, I forgot my customary cautionary warning!

I am not a doctor. I am not an expert in the field. The statements in my earlier post represent my own opinion, based on my recollection of readings and other studies done in the past. As such, they may or may not be entirely accurate. Please take them as a starting point only.

;)

I believe ketamines are the drugs in question, although I'm not positive. If you can get a copy, Shermer's "Why People Believe Wierd Things" has a pretty good chapter discussing NDEs, although I believe more information has come in since that was written.

[sat556]

I thought ketamine as well. I have a mate that messes with that on occasion. She has mentioned it many times as usable in inducing 'oddness'.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In fact, the religious visions in an NDE are the most telling. In the West, the majority of people see Jesus, Mary, Peter, and similar Christian figures. In the Middle East, Mohammad is in the majority. Similar effects occur in other areas...the religious figures seen reflect the predominant beliefs of the culture the person had the most contact with. According to Ian, this must be evidence that ALL religions are right.

And I guess you are the only intelligent being around here (besides Ian of course) because you are the only one who understands him. The rest of us are simply stupid, because we see that if NDE experiences vary from one culture to the other, we can easily find alternate explanations other than a soul finding his religious heroes after death.

Sorry, I dont want to insult you, Im just making a point ;)

[Hellbound]

LOL BDZ

That's pretty much the same point I was making :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We seem to have lost Ian. I so much want to hear why brightness influences my color perception while the actual color of the object does not. I feel sure this will clarify Ian's model of reality for me. Most certainly.

~~ Paul

[Belz...]

LOL BDZ

That's pretty much the same point I was making :)

Argh! I get all confused when people change their avatar to a COMPLETELY different thing!! ;)

[Hellbound]

Belz:

You know it's part of my world domination plot. I'm working on sowing confusion ;)

[sackett]

Bumping to say a word about Ian.

After two years of scrolling past it, I finally stopped to take a close look at his avatar – literally a close look, leaning in toward my screen and peering. (Is there some way to enlarge the image? Please explain in words comprehensible to a caveman; ‘puter literate I ain’t.) I didn’t see the arrogant fool I expected.

I once asked if that picture was actually Ian, or some grisly-looking pop culture figure, but nobody responded, so I’m assuming it’s Himself; besides, well, dammit, it looks like Interesting Ian.

I looked first at the eyes. I saw sadness. I saw puzzlement. I saw resignation, and more wistfulness than I would ever have expected.

I looked at the mouth and the lines around it. I saw – I fear I saw – great unhappiness; that mouth doesn’t look used to smiling.

If I could resolve more detail, I might see gin-blossoms, but I doubt it; Ian’s too young for that, and may not be the boozer he looks at first glance. I said I’d never peered closely before.

On another thread, Huntsman has opined that Ian has probably spent most of his life alone. I’m inclined to agree, and I think that’s a cruel thing for anyone to endure, no matter how much of an illogical asshat he chooses to be.

Ian is puzzling until you understand him; after that, he’s baffling. But his humanity is more apparent to me than it once was, and I think I’m finally done with taunting him on the playground at recess.

I’m pretty sure he has me on Ignore. Perhaps someone will quote this so he can see it?

[Interesting Ian]

I looked first at the eyes. I saw sadness. I saw puzzlement. I saw resignation, and more wistfulness than I would ever have expected.

I looked at the mouth and the lines around it. I saw – I fear I saw – great unhappiness; that mouth doesn’t look used to smiling.



It was taken 40 minutes before an exam on PC installation which I was somewhat worried about.